Brunsman v. Crook

Stockbridge, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This case is an appeal from the Circuit 'Court for .Howard County, rendered in an attachment proceeding under the following circumstances: On the 10th of May, 1910, a judgment was rendered in the Superior Court of Baltimore City against Francis I. Mooney, Trustee, for the sum of $204.27, and on the 6th of October in the same year a judgment was rendered against James P. Bannon for the stun of $208.73. The foundation for both of these judgments was a promissory note for $200.00, to which the interest between the date of the maturity of the note and the date of the rendition of the judgment as to each defendant was duly entered. In 1916 a writ of attachment was directed to be issued from the Superior Court of Baltimore City to Anne Arundel County, and accompanying the writ was a copy of the docket entries in the suit in Baltimore City.

So far as appears by the record no return was made to the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County of the writ issued from the Superior Court of Baltimore City, but on April 5th, 1916, there was filed an order in Anne Arundel County for a writ of fi. fa., and in June of the same year, and without any return having been made apparently to the writ of fi. fa., there was. an order to issue an attachment to Howard County from the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County. ■ When the case reached Howard County a motion was made to quash the writ of attachment issued from Anne Arundel County, and when this motion had been overruled the judg ⁶⁶³ ment from which this appeal was taken was entered. The first question for consideration which the record presents is therefore the correctness of the action of the Circuit Court for Howard County in overruling1 the motion to quash. The question at issue is therefore one of practice under Sections 19 and 20 of Article 26 of the Code of 1912, which provides in effect that when a judgment has been rendered in one county or in the City of Baltimore it becomes a lien upon the property of the defendant in such county or city, and that upon a transmittal of the record of such judgment, together with a copy of the docket entries, from the Court in which the judgment was originally rendered, the same becomes a lien, as from the time of its recording, upon all leasehold interest,s and terms of years of the defendant in land, except leases from year to year and leases for terms, of not more than five years and not renewable, to, the same extent and effect as liens are rendered by judgment upon real estate. The error into which the appellee fell, and apparently also the Circuit Court for Howard County, was in interpreting this language as giving to the copy of the docket entries, transmitted from the Court in which the original judgment was entered the full force and effect of an original judgment in the county to which it had been sent, when by its, express terms the act simply makes it a lien upon certain enumerated lands and interest in lands in such county.

The only docket entries which it was possible for the clerk of the Circuit Court, for Anne Arundel County to send to Howard County were those relating to the proceeding in Anne Arundel County. Ho could not certify to the proceeding had in the Superior Court of Baltimore (Tty, in which the judgment was originally rendered; that could only have been done by the clerk of that court. The rule as, laid down in 2 Poe on Practice (drd Ed.), sec. 3'T'T, is that “a judgment is not a lien on land in another county until a certified copy of the docket