Kneas v. Hecht Company

Digges, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal arises from a shoplifting incident in the Silver Spring, Maryland, department store of the Hecht Company. Because we conclude that the appeal must be dismissed an abbreviated statement of facts will suffice. On April 15, 1966, Edward John Eneas and a school friend, Terry Lohmeier, both thirteen years of age, entered the store to shop for a jacket.

It is agreed that eventually Terry Lohmeier, without authority or payment, with Edward standing nearby, appropriated a “surfer’s cross”, a small black iron cross, having a value of about one dollar. Two female store detectives observed the incident, detained the two boys and after questioning turned them over to the custody of the Montgomery County Police Department for further handling, all in accordance with the store’s routine procedure. The juvenile branch of the Police Department, after investigation, concluded that Terry was guilty of the shoplifting charge but that Edward was not a participant and the accusation against him was unfounded. Accordingly no further action was taken against Edward.

Following the incident and Edward’s exoneration by the police, his father instituted this action in his son’s name against the Hecht Company charging false imprisonment and false arrest. This action was originally filed in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County but removed at the instance of the plaintiff to the Circuit Court for Queen Anne County for trial. The jury, with Judge Eeating presiding, returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $10,000 compensatory damages and $30,000 punitive damages. Judgment nisi for the sum of $40,000 was entered by the clerk on May 28, 1968.

At the conclusion of all the testimony appellee-defendant made a motion for a directed verdict in its favor ¹²³ contending there was no evidence to support liability either for compensatory or punitive damages. Judge Keating reserved his decision on both issues. This reservation under Maryland Rule 563 automatically acts as a motion for judgment n.o.v. In addition, the jury’s verdict was followed by the defendant’s motion for judgment n.o.v. or in the alternative a motion for a new trial. Among the reasons assigned for the motion for new trial were the excessiveness of the verdict and error committed by the trial court in its instructions.

Judge Keating, after a hearing on August 8, 1968, concluded that because there was no evidence of malice as required under Maryland law to authorize punitive damages, he had committed error in submitting that issue to the jury. Accordingly he granted the motion for judgment n.o.v. on the issue of punitive damages with the alternative provision that if his ruling was reversed by the Court of Appeals, then there should be a new trial. In addition, Judge Keating decided that the compensatory damages were excessive and, exercising his discretion in the matter, granted the motion for new trial unless the plaintiff agreed to a remittitur in the amount of $5,000. He allowed one week to file a letter indicating acceptance of this reduction.

The plaintiff accepted the reduction on August 14, 1968, by letter and filed his formal remittitur on September 11, even though he had filed a notice of appeal on September 6 from Judge Keating’s ruling on the punitive damage award. After the entry of the judgment absolute for $5,000 on September 11, 1968, the defendant tendered and the plaintiff accepted payment of the judgment. The attorney for the plaintiff filed a notice with the clerk directing that the judgment be marked “Paid, Settled and Satisfied.” Appellant now seeks a review of Judge Keating’s action in granting judgment n.o.v. or in the alternative a new trial on the punitive damage award. We think he effectively forfeited his right to review by his own actions.

It is a well established general rule in this State that a litigant can not accept the benefits of a judgment or ¹²⁴ decree and be later heard to question its validity. Dubin v. Mobile Land Corp., 250 Md. 349, 353 , 243 A. 2d 585 (1968). The particular application of this rule made in