Hobbs v. Payne

Burke, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. It appears from the record in this case that on the 25th of October, 1909, two judgments, aggregating' one hundred and eighty dollars and costs, were entered by Thomas J. Daffin, a Justice of the Peace of Caroline County, against James T. Payne, at the suit of his father, James L. Payne, who has since died. These judgments were entered to the use of Charles W. Hobbs. An execution was issued upon the judgments, and the Sheriff of Caroline County, Alcenus E. Cooper, levied upon the property of the defendant, who there ²⁸⁹ upon filed a bill, which was subsequently amended, praying that the collection of the judgments and executions issued thereon, might be enjoined and cancelled.

After demurrers to the bill had been overruled, an answer was filed by Charles W. Hobbs, one of the defendants, and testimony was taken by the parties in open Court. In the view we take of the case a discussion of the allegations of the bill and of the testimony becomes unnecessary. The lower Court filed an opinion in which the averments of the bill, the evidence taken, and the law applicable to the facts were considered and discussed. It reached the conclusion that the bill should be dismissed, and its conclusion was given effect by an order in the following terms: “It is, therefore, adjudged, ordered and decreed by the Circuit Court for Caroline County, in Equity, that the bill filed in thisi case, be and the same is hereby dismissed with costs to the defendant.” It is stated in the bill that immediately upon the rendition of the judgments, the defendant in the case, James T. Payne, ordered an appeal to the Circuit Court for Caroline County, and the evidence shows that he did order an appeal within three or four days after the judgments were rendered.

But the magistrate refused to send the papers up until the defendant in the judgments had filed bond. Before the hearing in the Court below the term of the Justice who rendered the judgments had expired, and his docket and papers were deposited with the Clerk of the Court. After stating that the Justice was in error in refusing to send up the papers until a bond was filed, the Court held that the proper remedy of the plaintiff in this case was to apply for a mandamus requiring him to do so. The opinion then states that: “If the plaintiff desires to do so, he may still have the papers in these cases sent up by the clerk