Maryland case law › Diedel v. Diedel

Diedel v. Diedel

133 Md. 286 (1918) · Court of Appeals of Maryland
Court of Appeals of MarylandDisposition: DismissedBriscoe, J.✓ Good law
HoldingThis is an appeal from two orders of the Circuit Court No.

287 Briscoe, J., delivered the opinion, of the Court. This is an appeal from two orders of the Circuit Court, Ho. 2 of Baltimore City, passed in the present case, one dated the 11th day of March, 1918, and the other dated the 2nd day of April, 1918. The first order appealed from, sustained the defendant’s demurrer to the plaintiff’s bill, with leave to the plaintiff to file an amended hill within ten days, upon the ground, that the plaintiff had not alleged in the bill such facts as entitled the plaintiff to relief in equity against the defendants. It appears from the Record, that subsequent to the first order, nnder the leave granted by the Court, the plaintiff on the 21st day of .March, 1918, filed in the cause, what is alleged to be an amended and supplemental hill of complaint.

On the 26th of March, 1918, the defendants filed exceptions to the purported amended and supplemental bill, and also a motion, that it be not received and that it be stricken from the files of the Court, upon the ground, first, that the alleged bill was not in fact an amended and supplemental bill, but was in the nature of an original bill, and, second, that the matters and facts therein alleged in so. far as they are new matters not. set out in the original bill are not matters of such nature as can be presented by an amended or supplemental bill, but require the filing of an. original hill in order to secure for the plaintiff any relief which upon the allegations of the hill, he might be entitled to. The Court below upon hearing, after argument by counsel for plaintiff and defendants, being of the opinion, that the motions should be granted, on the 2nd of April, 1918, passed the order heretofore referred to, refusing to receive the amended and supplemental bill, and directing it to be stricken from, the files of the Court. And this is the second order here appealed from. It is quite clear from a.n examination of the Record, that the motion to dismiss this appeal or appeals, must prevail, 288 because neither of these orders

This is a preview of Diedel v. Diedel. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.