Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

48 Md. 115

Zitzer v. Jones

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided March 1, 1878

Court of Appeals of Maryland · decided 1878-03-01

<p>Motion for a New trial — Action thereon not reviewable on Appeal — When an Appeal will not lie — Practice in the Appellate Court on an Appeal from the Judgment of a Justice of the Peace.</p> <p>The motion for a new trial being addressed to the discretion of the Court, its. action thereon cannot be reviewed on appeal.</p> <p>The decision of the Baltimore City Court on an appeal from the judgment of a Justice of the Peace, in a matter within his jurisdiction, is final, and no appeal will lie therefrom to the Court of Appeals.</p> <p>On an appeal to the Baltimore City Court from the judgment of a Justice of the Peace by the defendant in the case, the City Court has jurisdiction to render a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for a larger sum than he had recovered before the Justice.</p> <p>On an appeal from the judgment of a Justice of the Peace, the ease is tried de novo in the appellate Court, and decided as if no judgment had been rendered, and without regard to the question by whom the appeal may-have been prosecuted.</p>

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““On appeals of ... [this] 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.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Hardy v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1878-03-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently August 2013

12 state decisions

40187818801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Bartol, C. J.,

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court.

¶2This case originated in a proceeding before a Justice of the Peace.

¶3The 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. Prom that judgment this appeal has been taken.

¶4The 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.

¶5But 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 *117City Court on appeal from his judgment is final, and no appeal lies to this Court. ■

(Decided 1st March, 1878.)

¶6The 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.

¶7Appeal dismissed.

/48/md/115 · .json · Public domain