TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

O'Hern v. Browning

Sarah R. O'Hern v. John H. Browning, Cornelius S. Johnson, and others

O'Hern v. Browning, 33 Md. 471 (1871)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals of Maryland · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 13, 1871
Judges
Stewart
Citations
33 Md. 4711871 Md. LEXIS 9
Disposition
A motion was made to dismiss the appeal.
Headnotes
Appeal. An appellant will not be denied his right of appeal, because the record of the ease is not transmitted to the Court of Appeals within nine months from the entry of the appeal, as required by law, it appearing that the record was not prepared for transmission within that time.
Summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Allegany County, in Equity. This was an appeal from an order passed on the 6th of August, 1869, striking out the appellant’s appeal from a decree passed on the 19th of August, 1868, rejecting her claims of over $25,000; and also from an order passed on the 28th of December, 1869, refusing to restore said appeal. The appeal was stricken out by the Circuit Court at the instance of the appellees, complainants below, upon the alleged ground of the neglect of the appellant to have a transcript of the proceedings in the cause transmitted to the Court of Appeals within the time required by law. The appeal from the decree of the 19th of August, 1868, was entered on the 5th 'of October, 1868, the record of the proceedings in the case, to be transmitted to the Court of Appeals, was duly copied about the 13th of July, 1869, but the costs for preparing the same were not entered upon the record until the 24th of August following, on which day the record was duly certified by the clerk under the seal of the 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 — Stewart

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

Stewart, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Under the Act of 1864, chapter 322, a party may lose his right of appeal if, by his neglect, the record shall not be transmitted to the Court of Appeals within nine months after the appeal has been entered, and the Court, from which the appeal was taken, may strike out the entry of the appeal in such case.

This loss of right to appeal, besides for other neglect, may be incurred by failure to 'pay the clerk for the preparation of the record, which the clerk is required to make out and transmit to the Court of Appeals within nine months after the appeal is entered.

It is the duty of the clerk to prepare the record, for transmission to this Court, within the nine months from the entry of the appeal, and where this is done, and his legal charge for the same has been made out and not paid, and the record is not transmitted within time, on that account the right of appeal is lost by such omission of the appellant.

*475 (Decided 13th January, 1871.)

When the clerk’s bill for the preparation of the record is not paid, or the record not transmitted within the nine months, from any other neglect or omission on the part of the appellant, the Court below has the power to strike out the entry of the appeal, and no other appeal can be taken on the same matter. Before this law deprives the party of his right of appeal, on account of the non-payment of the clerk’s bill for making out the record, which was the ground relied upon in this case, the clerk must have the record prepared for transmission within nine months from the entry of the appeal.

These provisions were intended to secure diligence on the part of the appellant, in maintaining his right of appeal, and also on the part of the clerk, and to allow him no excuse for not preparing the record for transmission in due time, because of the non-payment of his bill of fees for the same.

From the evidence adduced in this case, it does not appear that the record (which means a sufficient transcript of the proceedings below, to enable the Court of Appeals to review the same,) was prepared for transmission within the nine months from the entry of the appeal, and, therefore, we do not see that the appellant can be denied her right of appeal on that account.

To the extent, and under the limitations of the law, this right of appeal is not to be abridged by any narrow or technical construction. On the contrary, it is a valuable right secured to parties, where they are vigilant, and not to be forfeited, unless where they are guilty of such laches as the law will not sanction.

The motion to dismiss the appeal from the order refusing to rescind the order striking out the appeal must be overruled, and the order of the Court below refusing to reinstate the appeal, must be reversed, and an order will be passed by this Court reversing said order, and rescinding the first order striking out the appeal.

Motion to dismiss overruled, and order reversed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1934: 11980: 11981: 119342026peak 1934 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Sullivan v. Insurance Commissioner434 A.2d 1024 (Md. 1981)
  2. Uhler v. Real Properties, Inc.421 A.2d 966 (Md. 1980)
  3. Brinsfield v. Mather171 A. 357 (Md. 1934)

Most recent

  1. Sullivan v. Insurance Commissioner434 A.2d 1024 (Md. 1981)
  2. Uhler v. Real Properties, Inc.421 A.2d 966 (Md. 1980)
  3. Brinsfield v. Mather171 A. 357 (Md. 1934)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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