Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

260 Md. 382

Milgray Electronics, Inc. v. Vitro Electronics

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided January 11, 1971

Court of Appeals of Maryland · decided 1971-01-11

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently March 1984

2 state decisions

Relies on Vitro Electronics v. Milgray Electronics, Inc. · Tvardek v. Tvardek · Hillyard Construction Co. v. Lynch

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1971-01-11

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1Milgray Electronics, Inc. of New York has made its second appearance before us in its attempts to resist jurisdiction under the Maryland “Long Arm” statute, Code (1957, 1965 Repl. Vol.) Art. 75, § 96. See Vitro Elec*383tronics v. Milgray, 255 Md. 498, 258 A. 2d 749 (1969). This appeal is from an order denying Milgray’s motion under Maryland Rule 323 to quash service of process and dismiss the action against it. On our own motion and in accordance with Rule 835 a 2 we have determined that its appeal must be dismissed. “It has long been established that no appeal will lie from an order overruling a motion to quash a writ of summons, [citations omitted] because it is interlocutory only, and not a final judgment.” Hillyard Constr. Co. v. Lynch, 256 Md. 375, 379, 260 A. 2d 316 (1970) and cases cited there: Tvardek v. Tvardek, 257 Md. 88, 92-93, 261 A. 2d 762 (1970).

¶2Appeal dismissed and case remanded for further proceedings. Costs to be paid by the appellants.

/260/md/382 · .json · Public domain