Costigin v. Bond

Frances M. Costigin, and Sallie M. Costigin v. Thomas Bond

Costigin v. Bond, 3 A. 285 (Md. 1886)

Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland · State Highest Courts
Decided: March 10, 1886
Judges: Bryan
Citations: 3 A. 28565 Md. 1221886 Md. LEXIS 15

Cited by 20 4 descriptions by later courts

Headnotes

Section 22, of Article 4, of the Constitution — Reservation of a Ruling or Decision for the Court in Banc — Sitting—Term of Court — Jurisdiction of the Court in Bane. Where a trial is conducted by less than the whole number of the Judges of a Circuit Court, it is competent, under section twenty-two, of Article four, of the Constitution, for a party against whom a decision is made, to have the point or question reserved for the ■ consideration of the three Judges of the Circuit in bane; and their decision shall be conclusive against him. In the provision of the Constitution requiring that the motion for the reservation of the point or question decided, for the consideration of the three Judges as a Court in banc, shall be entered of record during the sitting at which such decision may be made, the word “sitting” is not used as synonymous with “term” of the Court. The exception to a ruling must properly be taken as soon as the ruling is made; but the party taking the exception has during the entire sitting, that is, the whole time until the Court adjourns for .the day, to determine whether he will take his appeal to the Court in banc, or to the Court of Appeals. Where the motion to reserve for the consideration of the Court in banc a decision made in the trial of a cause by one of the Circuit Judges, is not entered of record during the sitting at which such decision is rendered, the Court in banc has no jurisdiction of the same.

Summary

Appeal from the Circuit Court for St. Mary’s County. An action of ejectment was brought by the appellants against the appellee. At the trial which was before only one of the Judges of the Court, certain exceptions were1 taken to the. rulings of the Court on prayers offered by counsel for the instruction of the jury. On the 31st of March, 1885, the jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiffs. Afterwards on the second day of April, the defendant filed a motion for a new trial, which was by the Court overruled, and a motion was made by the defendant for an appeal thereon to the Court in banc; and on the same day the defendant filed a motion in arrest of judgment, which was by the Court on the same day overruled, and exception reserved by the defendant to 'the Court in banc. On the same day the defendant filed two bills of exception; it was stated in each exception that he appealed to the Court in banc. The plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeal to the Court in banc. The Court overruled the motion to dismiss the appeal, and reversed the judgment for error in granting the plaintiffs’ prayer, and ruled that on other points the judgment would have been affirmed. The Court ordered the cause to be remanded for a new trial. The plaintiffs appealed from the order of the Court overruling their motion to dismiss the appeal to the Court in banc, reversing the judgment of the Circuit Court, and ordering a new trial of the case.

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

Opinion of the Court — Bryan

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

Bryan, J.,

after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the Court.

The twenty-second section of the fourth Article of the Constitution gave a new right of appeal. When a trial is conducted by less than the whole number of the Judges of a Circuit Court, it is competent for a party against whom *124 a decision is made to have the point or question reserved for the consideration of the three Judges in banc; and their decision is to be conclusive against him. This proceeding is in substitution of an appeal to the Court of Appeals, and makes a considerable alteration in the law on this subject. The change is not to be extended by construction beyond the terms of the Constitution. It is provided that the motion for a reservation of the point or question decided shall be entered of record during the sitting at which the decision may be made. The word “ sitting ” is not synonymous with “term” of the Court.- The exception to a ruling must properly be taken as soon as the ruling is made ; but this provision of the Constitution intended to give the party taking an exception the entire sitting of the Court (that is the whole time until the Court adjourned for the day) to determine whether he would have his appeal to the Court in banc, or to the Court of Appeals. It would be a very improvident construction of this section to hold that a party might have the whole term of the Court to make up his mind ; and we think it is not warranted by the plain meaning of the words. As the motion was not entered of record during the sitting at which the ruling was made, the Court in banc had no jurisdiction of the appeal. As the ruling of the Court in banc was made exclusively on the bills of exception, our decision refers only to them.

(Decided 10th March, 1886.)

Judgment reversed.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 4 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

(on appeal by nonmoving party, Court held court in banc without jurisdiction to hear case because points not properly reserved for review)

Estep v. Estep, 404 A.2d 1040 (Md. 1979)
(Article IV, § 22 “gave a new right of appeal” that was “in substitution of an appeal” to the appellate court)

Norino Props. v. Balsamo, 253 Md. App. 226 (2021)
(“As the motion was not entered of record during the sitting at which the ruling was made, the [c]ourt in banc had no jurisdiction of the appeal.”)

Guillaume v. Guillaume, No. 2928/18 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Oct. 30, 2019)

Cited by 20 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Montgomery County v. McNeece533 A.2d 671 (Md. 1987)
Guillaume v. GuillaumeNo. 2928/18 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Oct. 30, 2019)
Berg v. Berg137 A.3d 1035 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2016)
Bienkowski v. Brooks873 A.2d 1122 (Md. 2005)
State Roads Commission v. Smith168 A.2d 705 (Md. 1961)
State v. Phillips179 A.3d 965 (Md. 2018)

Most recent

Norino Properties v. Balsamo253 Md. App. 226 (2021)
Guillaume v. GuillaumeNo. 2928/18 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Oct. 30, 2019)
State v. Phillips179 A.3d 965 (Md. 2018)
Berg v. Berg137 A.3d 1035 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2016)
Remson v. Krausen47 A.3d 613 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2012)
Bienkowski v. Brooks873 A.2d 1122 (Md. 2005)

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.

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list