John B. Colt Co. v. Wright

Urner, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. A judgment by confession was entered against the appellee, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, on two promissory notes for sums aggregating $342. Each of the notes, in the event of default in its payment at maturity, authorized any attorney at law to appear for the appellee in any court of record in the State of Maryland, or elsewhere, to waive the issue and service of process, and to confess a judgment against him for any amount then due on the note, with costs of suit and ten per cent, collection charges. In pursuance of that provision, an attorney at law of Baltimore County appeared for the appellee and agreed to the entry of the judgment.

The declaration in the case was supported by affidavit of an officer of the corporate plaintiff that the amount claimed was due from the defendant to the plaintiff, over and above all discounts, and there was an order of court directing the clerk to enter the judgment in accordance with the confession. A motion was subsequently made to strike out the judgment on the ground that the defendant was not a resident of Baltimore County, or engaged in any business ³⁸⁹ or employment there, but resides in Wicomico County, and that the judgment was therefore rendered by a court with-; out jurisdiction, and is null and void. From an order striking out the judgment on that ground, the plaintiff has appealed. The contention of the appellee is based upon section 157 of article 75 of the Code, which provides: “Ho person shall be sued out of the county in which he resides until the sheriff or coroner of the county in which he resides shall have returned a non est on a summons issued in such county; provided, that nothing herein contained shall apply to any person who shall abscond from justice in the county where he lives, but such person may be sued in any county where he may be found; and provided further, that any person who resides in one county but carries on any regular business, or habitually engages in any avocation or employment in another county, may be sued in either county, whether before a justice of the peace or in a court of law or equity; this section not to apply to ejectment, dower, replevin, scire facias on judgment or decree, nor to heirs, devisees or terre-tenants, against whom process may be issued to another county.” That section has been considered by this court in a number of cases, and the exemption from suit out of the county of the defendant’s residence or business has been held to be a personal privilege, which he may waive.

If he voluntarily appears to the action, in person or by attorney, and makes no objection on the grounds specified in the statute, and the subject-matter of the suit is within the proper scope of the court’s cognizance, it may proceed with the trial and determination of the case in the exercise of a competent jurisdiction. Public Service Commission v. Byron, 153 Md. 464, 474 , 138 A. 404 ; Hodgson v. Southern Bldg. Assn., 91 Md. 439 , 46 A. 971 ; Gemundt v. Shipley, 98 Md. 657 , 57 A. 12, 14 ; Harrison v. Morton, 87 Md. 671 , 40 A. 897 ; Fairfax Co. v. Chambers, 75 Md. 604 , 23 A. 1024 ; Ireton v. Baltimore, 61 Md. 432