Hough v. Kelsey & Gray

Bowie, C. J., delivered the opinion of this Court: The appellants obtained a judgment before a justice of the peace of Baltimore city, on the 14th October 1859, against the appellees, for $40.50 debt, and $1.55 costs. After the rendition of the judgment, the magistrate by whom the judgment was rendered, within thirty days after its rendition, and before an appeal was taken or notified to him, went out of office. The appellees, before sixty days had expired, authorized their attorney to appeal to the -Court of Common Pleas. A petition was filed with the ■clerk of that Court, praying an appeal, on the 15th December 1859.

The appellants moved the Court to dismiss the appeal, because not taken within sixty days after the rendition of the judgment; which motion the Court overruled, and proceeded to try the cause, and reversed the judgment of the justice of the peace. From which judgment of the ■Court of Common Pleas, this appeal is taken. Appeals from judgments of justices of the peace, in cases of small debts, to the County Courts, Circuit Courts, (and in the city of Baltimore to the Court of Common Pleas,) have been given by successive Acts of Legislature, the last of which, before the Code, regulating the appeal in this case, was that of 1852. Oh. 239, sec. 3, of that Act, provides: “That from all judgments of justices of the peace, the party or parties aggrieved thereby, shall be at liberty ⁴⁵⁵ tv appeal to the Court having jurisdiction to hear such appeal at any time within sixty clays after the rendition of any such judgment. * * * * And on the party signifying his intention to appeal, it shall be the duty of the justice of the peace to enter the appeal, with the elate thereof, upon his docket, and to transmit the papers in the cause to the clerk of the proper Court." It is admitted in the record, that the magistrate by whom the judgment was rendered, had gone out of office after the judgment, but within thirty days, after, and before the appeal was taken; that the appellees called at the magistrate’s office to take an appeal, and failing to see him, subsequently, before sixty days had expired, authorized their attorney to appeal; and that the papers in the cause liad not been actually brought into the Court of Common Pleas within sixty days after the rendition of the judgment.

The petition for appeal was filed on the 15th December 1859. The appellants contend, the Court of Common Pleas having “unwarrantably assumed jurisdiction,” this Court may review and reverse their judgment. On the other hand, the appellees move to dismiss the appeal, because, among other reasons, the Acts of Assembly of this State have given no appeal to this Court from, decisions of the Circuit Courts, or Court of Common Pleas, acting on appeals from judgments of justices of the peace. Nearly the same authorities are referred to and relied on by the opposing counsel to maintain their respective positions.

The jurisdiction of Circuit Courts and the Court of Common Pleas, is original and appellate. In the exercise of the latter, their decisions are final, unless provision is made by law for a further appeal. Their judgments, although erroneous, are nevertheless conclusive, because within their jurisdiction: “they are not unwarrantably ⁴⁵⁶ .pronounced and subject to' be reviewed and reversed in this ■Court,” because they are not correct. The case of Webster, et al., vs. Cockey, 9 Gill, 93 , in which the position relied on by the appellant occurs, viz.: '“But if no such rig’ht of appeal be conferred on the County '■Court, then its judgments, unwarrantably pronounced on the subject, may, by appeal, bo reviewed and reversed in •this Court,” when properly analyzed and considered with 'the case of the State vs. Mister, 5 Md. Rep., 17 , in which •it is