Davidson v. Myers

Lien of Judgment : Interlocutory and Final Judgment. — A judgment by default was entered on the 15tb of January, 1862, and final judgment for the amount of the claim with interest was entered up on the 30th of October, 1862, Held: 1st. That this judgment could not in the nature of things relate back and take effect as of the date of the judgment by default; nor could the judgment by default, in establishing the jurisdiction of the Court and the simple fact of the plaintiffs right to recover, be said or understood to constitute a recovery. 2nd. That treating the judgment by default as interlocutory merely, it could not operate as a lien on the real or leasehold property of the defendant. The Act of 1861, Oh. Í0, declares that judgments shall be liens for their amount and from their date, Held : That by this provision final judgments alone were contemplated.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Baltimore City. On the 14th of December, 1863, the appellant filed his bill of complaint in the Superior Court of Baltimore City, stating as follows : “That at January Term, 1882, of the Court of Common Pleas for Baltimore City, your orator obtained a judgment by default against a certain William Rogers, which was afterwards extended by the agreement of the parties on the 30th day of October, 1862, for the sum of $277.50 cts., with interest from the 24th day of October, 1862, and costs, that on the 18th day of August, 1863, your orator caused a writ of fieri facias to be issued on said judgment, which was duly executed by levying the same on certain leasehold estate belonging to said Rogers, lying on Hoffman street, in the City of Baltimore, and by a sale thereof, at public sale to your orator, all of which will more fully appear by a short copy of the docket entries in said Court of Common Pleas, herewith filed, marked A, and by a copy of the Sheriff’s deed herewith filed, marked B, and prayed to be taken as part hereof. “ That all said proceedings were regular and bona fide on the part of your orator, and as he charges, vested a perfect leg'al title in him, and he especially avers that the judgment as finally extended as aforesaid, was for the real debt due by said Rogers to your orator, and for which he held the note of said Rogers. Your orator further showeth, that on the 9th day of September, 1862, a certain Charles H. Myers and Alexius J. Myers, who are prayed to be made defendants hereto, obtained a judgment against said Rogers in your honorable Court by confession, as appears by the short copy thereof herewith filed, marked C, and prayed to be taken as part of this bill of complaint ; that the said plaintiffs last named since the execution of the Sheriff’s deed to your orator, to wit: on the 29th day of October, 1853, caused a writ of fi. fa. to issue on said last judgment, and placed it in the Sheriff’s hands for the avowed purpose of levying the same on and selling the identical property described in said Sheriff’s deed, under the pretence that said judgment so obtained in your honorable Court, is prior in legal effect to the aforesaid judgment of your orator ; whereas your orator charges that the same is subsequent, and that the only effect of such levy and sale will be to harrass and injure your orator, by casting clouds of doubts upon the title thus legally acquired by him, and by causing him to institute proceedings against the purchaser, whoever he may be, under the said fi.fa. now in said Sheriff’s hands as aforesaid, with a view to the cancelation of his said pirrchase, and the removal of' the cloud about to be cast over the title of your orator by the illegal acts and continuances of said Charles H. Myers and Alexius S. Myers in the premises, all of which proceedings your orator charges are oppressive and contrary to good conscience, wherefore inasmuch as your orator is remediless, at and by the strict rules of the common law, and to the end that the said Charles H. and Alexius J. Myers, and the Sheriff of Baltimore City, may be enjoined from proceeding further in the execution of said writ of fieri facias so issued from your honorable Court, and that your orator may be decreed to have a perfect and valid title to said property as against the pretended lien of the judgment so obtained by said Charles H. and Alexius J. Myers, and such other and further relief as to your honor may seem right and proper ; may it please your honor to grant the State’s writ of injunction, restricting and enjoining the said Charles H. and Alexius J. Myers, their aiders and abettors, and John J. Dannecker, the Sheriff of Baltimore city, from proceeding further in the execution of said writ of fieri facias issued at the suit of said O. IP. & A. J. Myers, by levying the same on the property described in the deed of said Edward E. Sparks, Sheriff, as aforesaid to your orator, a copy of which is herewith filed, marked B ; and in case your honor should hold that the said defendants are entitled to priority by reason of their said execution and judgment, then your orator herewith tenders himself ready to pay into Court, and he does hereby tender himself ready under the order of your honor to pay to said defendants the full amount due to them. The defendants answered, admitting the material facts stated in the bill, and the cause being heard on the bill and answer, the Court, Martin, J., on the 13th of January, 1864, delivered the following opinion : In this case the application for an injunction is refused, and the bill dismissed, as the judgment obtained by the complainant by default, in the Court of Common Pleas, on the 15th of January, 1862, is to be treated as a mere interlocutory judgment, on the case of Kiersiead vs. Rogers & Garland, 6 H. & J., 282, and supported by approved writers on the practice of the Courts, {Evans’ Practice, 335. Bingham on Judgments, 3,) and as such created no lien on the leasehold estate of the debtor, until it became a final judgment, by being extended by the Court on the 30th of October, 1862. United States vs. Morrison, 4 Pet., 136. Eschbach vs. Pitts, 6 Md. Rep., 11. Glements & Barry, 11 Hoto., 398. The judgment therefore obtained by the complainant in the Court of Common Pleas on the 15th of January, 1862, and not extended until the 30th of October, 1862, must be considered as subordinate to the judgment regularly and fairly obtained by the defendants in the Superior Court, on the 9th of September, 1862, and I will sign a decree refusing the prayer for an injunction as asked for by the complainant, and dismissing the bill, with costs. This appeal is taken from the order passed in conformity with the foregoing opinion.