Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

49 Md. 569

Marsh v. Johns

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided July 24, 1878

Court of Appeals of Maryland · decided 1878-07-24

The appellant sued the appellee for damages in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, from which Court the case was removed to the Baltimore City Court and afterwards to the Circuit Court for Howard County. The suit was instituted 31st August, 1875, the declaration was filed 27fch November, 1875, the case was continued from term to term, and the plea was filed 12th March, 1877.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1878-07-24

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently March 1999

4 state decisions

101878188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 →

Stewart, J.,

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court.

¶2From the record in this case it appears the plaintiff failed to reply to the defendant’s plea, and judgment of non pros, was entered against him, it is tobe presumed according to the rules of the Court

¶3The plaintiff then moved to strike out the judgment of nonpros., which was overruled.

¶4This appeal was taken from the judgment of nonpros.

¶5The 75th Article, 34th sec., of the Code provides, that “ no cause shall be continued beyond the second term after process has been served on the defendant, unless by consent of parties, or upon good cause shown by the party asking the continuance.”

¶6The purpose of the law, and the establishment of rules by the Court in accordance therewith, is for the orderly and prompt dispatch of business.

*571(Decided 24th July, 1878.)

¶7Besides these general rules, it is competent for either party to obtain a rule on the other party to declare, plead, reply, rejoin, &c. by a special day to be prescribed by the Court other than either of the general rule days, and if the party so required neglect to declare, plead, reply, rejoin, &c. by the day prescribed, judgment of non pros., or by default, as the case may require, may he entered up against him, unless the Court for good cause shown shall enlarge the rule.

¶8Ho trial should be postponed unless there is some legal ground shown, or the Court is satisfied that justice requires a postponement, particularly where witnesses have behn summoned.

¶9If the case is not at issue when it ought to be, and does not stand under a rule, the Court will discontinue it for want of prosecution, as it is always the duty of the plaintiff, or his attorney, to take care that his case is put at issue by laying the proper rule.

¶10He has no standing in Court as a litigant unless he can maintain it by compliance with the law and the rules of the Court.

¶11The non pros, follows as a consequence by not having filed his pleading, as required by the rule of the Court. Evans’ Prac., 314.

¶12In the absence of any reason to the contrary appearing, the judgment of the Court must be presumed to be right.

¶13The plaintiff failing to prosecute his suit by filing the proper pleading was liable to be non prossed, and the judgment of the Circuit Court so ordering was the necessary result of his default.

¶14Judgment affirmed.

/49/md/569 · .json · Public domain