Zitzer v. Jones
| Decision Date | 01 March 1878 |
| Parties | JOHN J. ZITZER v. ARTHUR P. JONES. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
APPEAL from the Baltimore City Court.
The case is stated in the opinion of the Court.
The cause was submitted to BARTOL, C.J., BOWIE, STEWART, BRENT, ALVEY and ROBINSON, J.
Thomas A. Hopkins, for the appellant.
Edward B. Bates, for the appellee.
This case originated in a proceeding before a Justice of the Peace.
The appellee warranted the appellant in an action of debt, and a judgment was rendered in his favor by the Justice for $20, with interest and costs; whereupon the defendant appealed to the Baltimore City Court. Upon a trial in that Court the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the appellee, the plaintiff in the case, for $67. The defendant then moved for a new trial, the motion was overruled, and judgment was entered on the verdict. From that judgment this appeal has been taken.
The motion for a new trial is always a matter within the discretion of the Court hearing the motion, and cannot be reviewed on appeal. This has been repeatedly decided in cases coming up from the Circuit Courts, from whose decisions an appeal to this Court ordinarily may be taken.
But in this case there is no ground on which the appeal can be entertained. The matter being within the jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace, the decision of the City Court on appeal from his judgment is final, and no appeal lies to this Court.
The appellant is in error in supposing that the City Court had not the jurisdiction to render a judgment in favor of the appellee, for a larger sum than he had recovered before the Justice. On appeals of that kind the case is tried de novo, the parties are not restricted to the proof given before the Justice, but the case goes on and is decided as if no judgment had been rendered, and without regard to the question by whom the appeal may have been prosecuted.
Appeal dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parker v. State
...novo trial, the Circuit Court enters as its judgment the judgment that had previously been entered by the District Court. See Zitzer v. Jones, 48 Md. 115 (1878); Montgomery Ward and Company v. Herrmann, 190 Md. 405, 58 A.2d 677 (1948); Hardy v. State, 279 Md. 489, 369 A.2d 1043 (1977); Md.R......
- Drury v. King
-
Harper v. State
...Harding v. State, 250 Md. 188, 192, 242 A.2d 135 (1968); Montgomery Ward v. Herrmann, 190 Md. 405, 409, 58 A.2d 677 (1948); Zitzer v. Jones, 48 Md. 115, 117 (1878); Borden Mining Co. v. Barry, 17 Md. 419, 428-429 (1861); Gott v. Carr, 6 G. & J. 309, 315 (1834); A. Thomas, Supplement to Proc......
-
Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Herrmann
...is decided as if no judgment had been rendered in the People's Court, regardless of which party may have taken the appeal. Compare Zitzer v. Jones, 48 Md. 115. In case before us it is contended that the Baltimore City Court had no power to reverse the judgment of the People's Court without ......