Kamps v. Alexander

Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal is, by the plaintiffs from a ruling of the Baltimore City Court, in the trial of issues from the Orphans’ Court of Baltimore City involving the validity of the, will of Elizabeth Everett, and the appellees, have filed a motion in this Court to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it was not taken within the time prescribed by the statute, and on the further ground that the bill of exceptions was not signed and filed within the time required by law. Section 6 of Article 5 of the Code provides,: “All appeals, or writs of error, allowed from any judgment or determination of a court of law, to the Court of Appeals of this State, other than from decisions on questions arising under the insolvent law, shall be taken within two months from the date of such judgment or determination, and not afterwards.” The record in this, case shows, that the verdict of the jury on the issues, involved in this appeal was rendered on the 27th of October, 1917, and that the order for the appeal was not filed until the 6th of February, 1918, more than three months after the date of the verdict. It appears,, however, from the docket, entries, that on the day the verdict was, rendered the plaintiffs filed a motion for a new trial, and that the motion was, not finally disposed of by the Court until the 1st day of February, 1918, and the appellants, contend that where a motion for a new trial is filed in due time there can be no appeal until that motion is disposed of.

That is the settled rule in ordinary suits, at, law, where the Court enters a judgmentfrom which alone the ²⁰⁰ appeal may be taken, and where the judgment cannot be entered until the motion for a new trial is overruled. But in the trial of issues from Orphans’ Courts, courts of law do not enter a. judgment, and the appeal is allowed by the statute from the “determination” by the court of law of questions of law arising during the trial of the issues. Hoppe v. Byers, 60 Md. 381 . Such determinations or rulings of the court of law become effective and final upon the rendition of the verdict, and the time within which the appeal must be taken runs from the date the verdict is rendered.

A petition for a rehearing after the entry of a decree does not operate, to suspend the decree so as to arrest the running of the time in which an appeal must be taken. Jacobs v. Bealmear, 41 Md. 484 . Upon the same principle, a, motion to strike out a judgment does not suspend the judgment, nor can a motion for a new trial, after a verdict upon issues from the Orphans’ Court, operate to suspend the rulings of the court of law, or the verdict. Whatever may be the rule in other jurisdictions the precise question was decided by this Court in the case of Bradley v. Bradley, 123 Md. 506 .

In that case the verdict of the jury in favor of the defendant on the issues sent from the Orphans’ Court was rendered on the 23rd of August, 1913. A motion for a new trial was filed by the plaintiffs on the 25th of August, 1913, and was overruled by the Court on the 12th of November, 1913, and the order for the appeal was filed on December 2nd, 1913. In dismissing the appeal this Court, after referring to the section of' the Code quoted above, said: “It is well settled that the Circuit Court has no authority to enter a, judgment on a verdict rendered on issues sent from the Orphans’ 'Court; and the appeal in such cases is taken from the determinations and rulings of the Court, in the course of the trial of the issues. * * * In this case, the verdict of the jury was in favor of the appellee on all the issues and was rendered on August 23rd, 1913; there was no appeal taken until the 2nd day of December, 1913; and as this date was not within the time limited by the stat ²⁰¹ ute. for an appeal, but afterwards., the appeal from the rulings or determinations of the Court, during a trial below is clearly too late.” It is suggested by the appellants that as counsel