TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Morris L. Hollowell & Co. v. Miller

Morris L. Hollowell & Co. v. Samuel Miller

Morris L. Hollowell & Co. v. Miller, 17 Md. 305 (1861)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Maryland · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 4, 1861
Judges
Bartol, Goldsborough, Grand, Tuck
Citations
17 Md. 3051861 Md. LEXIS 41
Headnotes
Upon appeal from an order quashing an attachment issued by way of execution, which order stated that it was passed “upon hearing the arguments of counsel, and duo consideration of the same, and the evidence in the cause,” the record did not contain the evidence upon which the court below acted. Held: That in this state of the record, no error is disclosed upon which this court can reverse the order; the evidence upon which the court below acted, ought to be set out in the record, or in a bill of exceptions, or if it acted without proof, the record ought so to state. A judgment coming up by appeal, is prima facie correct, and cannot be reversed by the appellate court, unless they arc convinced it is erroneous, and in the absence of testimony to the contrary, this court must presume that the court below acted properly.
Summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Cecil county. This appeal was taken from an order of the court below (Price, J.) quashing an attachment issued by way of execution on a judgment obtained by the appellants against one Samuel H. Miller. The proceedings in the case are fully stated in the opinion of this court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Bartol

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Bartol, J.,

delivered the opinion of this court.

The appellants, on the 18th of October 1856, recovered a judgment in the circuit court for Cecil county, against one Samuel H. Miller, for $312.53, with interest and costs, and afterwards, on the 25th of January 1858, they issued an attachment, by way of execution thereon, which was returned by the sheriif, stating that he had ‘‘attached credits” in the hands of certain named persons, whom he had summoned as garnishees. As a part of his return, the sheriff filed copies of several judgments rendered by a justice of the peace in favor of the defendant, Samuel II. Miller, against the garnishees. At the return of the attachment, Samuel Miller, the appellee, appeared and claimed the credits so attached as be *308 longing to him, in virtue of an alleged assignment madé to him before the attachment issued, and filed his claim in writing, verified by affidavit, and moved to quash the attachment.

(Decided Oct. 4th, 1861.)

In answer to this claim, the appellants filed three pleas, in substance denying that any assignment had been made, and alleging that if any such assignment had been made, it was without consideration, and in fraud of the rights of the creditors of Samuel H. Miller.

The circuit court, by its order dated the 27th of November 1858, quashed the attachment, and from that order this appeal was taken.

In the order it is stated, that the same was passed “upon hearing the arguments of counsel, and due consideration of the same, and the evidence in the cause.”

The record does not contain the evidence upon which the circuit court acted, and, in the condition in which it comes before us, there is no error disclosed, upon which this court can be called on to reverse the judgment below. The evidence upon which that court acted, ought to be set out in the record, or in a bill of exceptions, in order that the appellate court may pass upon it; or if, as alleged by the appellant, the circuit court sustained the motion without any proof to support it, the record ought so to state.

“A judgment below, coming up by appeal, is prima facie correct, and cannot be reversed by the appellate court, unless they are convinced it is erroneous.” 6 Md. Rep., 375 .

“In the absence of testimony to the contrary, we must intend that the court acted properly.” 4 Md. Rep., 278 . 14 Md. Rep., 120 .

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1863–1864: 11867–1868: 11901–1902: 11911–1912: 21917–1918: 11931–1932: 118632026peak 1911 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Mayor of Baltimore v. Austin51 A. 824 (Md. 1902)
  2. Lee v. State161 A. 284 (Md. 1932)
  3. Jones v. State83 A. 1100 (Md. 1912)
  4. Horner v. O'Laughlin29 Md. 465 (1868)
  5. Palmenberg v. Turk81 A. 221 (Md. 1911)
  6. Wilmer v. Ridgely102 A. 745 (Md. 1917)

Most recent

  1. Lee v. State161 A. 284 (Md. 1932)
  2. Wilmer v. Ridgely102 A. 745 (Md. 1917)
  3. Jones v. State83 A. 1100 (Md. 1912)
  4. Palmenberg v. Turk81 A. 221 (Md. 1911)
  5. Mayor of Baltimore v. Austin51 A. 824 (Md. 1902)
  6. Horner v. O'Laughlin29 Md. 465 (1868)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Turton v. Turton, 6 Md. 375 (1854) 9
Burtles v. State ex rel. Turner, 4 Md. 273 (1853) 8

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list