Hayden v. Wesner

Gilbert, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. ³²⁴ This case reaches us by way of an expedited appeal 1 on the narrow issue of whether "a want of necessary parties” mandates a dismissal of a wrongful death action that was successfully pursued in Charles County. The record reveals that a declaration was brought for the wrongful death of Edward Lee Morgan, who was shot to death by the appellant Roddy Sylvester Hayden. The litigation was titled "State of Maryland for the Benefit of Rose Elizabeth Wesner and Rose Elizabeth Wesner, Personal Representative of Edward Lee Morgan” versus the defendant-appellant. Mrs. Wesner is the mother of the decedent.

The suit asserts that it is brought "pursuant to Title 3, Section 904 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland.” Subsection (a) of § 3-904 provides: "An action under this subtitle shall be for the benefit of the wife, husband, parent, and child of the deceased person.” Notwithstanding how the case is titled, a jury in the Circuit Court for Charles County (Clark, J.) retürned a "Verdict in favor of the Plaintiff, Rose E. Wesner” for compensatory damages in the amount of $70,000, and a verdict in her favor, as personal representative, in the sum of $7,000. In "open court” after the verdicts, the appellant-defendant filed a "motion raising preliminary objections” to the absence of a necessary party, namely, the plaintiff, Rose E. Wesner. The appellant noted that the suit was brought by the "State of Maryland, for the Benefit of Rose Elizabeth Wesner” and not by Mrs. Wesner, individually. Thus, the appellant reasons, the verdict must be stricken since the suit was improperly brought, and the verdict improperly handed down.

Judge Clark proceeded to direct that judgments nisi be entered on the verdict. Approximately a month later, he ³²⁵ denied the motion raising preliminary objection and directed the entry of judgments absolute. This appeal ensued. The appellant candidly admits that the appeal is "most technical” 2 but, he says, "substantial.” Appellant readily acknowledges that "the entire trial was conducted as if Mrs. Wesner, individually, was the plaintiff, and that no prejudice to Appellant in the nature of surprise, confusion of the trier of fact or inability to present a defense resulted.” The appellant further acknowledges that he could have "moved for relief at any stage of the proceedings under either Maryland Rule 323 a 8 or Maryland Rule 203 d.” Md. Rule 323 a provides that: "Any of the following defenses constitute grounds for a motion