MacNabb v. Haas

Sloan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant, Murray MacNabb, was the defendant in a suit brought against him by the appellee, Frederick Haas, plaintiff in the People’s Court of Baltimore City, in which the plaintiff obtained a judgment for twelve dollars. On appeal to the Baltimore City Court the judgment was reduced to ten dollars. Before proceeding to trial in the City Court, the defendant filed a motion to quash and strike out the judgment of the People’s Court on the ground that under section 626 of article 4 of the Local Code (same section of the Baltimore City Charter), "No Justice of the Peace, in any ease of debt or damages whatever, shall issue a summons except on application for the same, in writing, by the plaintiff or his attorney, accompanied with the bond, bill of exchange, promissory note or other writing or account, or by a copy of such bond, bill of exchange, promissory note, or other writing or account, by which the defendant is so indebted; or if the action be brought upon a verbal or implied contract, or for damages arising in any manner whatsoever, a statement of the particulars of the plaintiff’s claim thereunder shall accompany the said written application.” From the order overruling the motion to quash, and from the judgment of the City Court, this appeal is taken.

The application for summons and particulars are as follows: “In the People’s Court of Baltimore City. Frederick Haas, 3902 Greenway, vs. Murray MacNabb, 216 St. Paul. Baltimore, Md., 22 day of Nov., 1933. To the Presiding Justice of the People’s Court: ²²³ Please docket the above-entitled cause; issue summons for the defendant in an action of debt as per the attached cause of action.

And the plaintiff claims the sum of $12.50. Frederick Haas, For Plaintiff.” “Account, the Cause of Action. Mr. Murray MacNabb, 216 Stj Paul Street, Baltimore, Md. Amount of damage to Packard car, $12.50 Frederick Haas, 3902 Greenway, Baltimore, Md.” The defendant’s contention is that the statement of the account or cause of action is not such “a statement of the particulars of the plaintiff’s claim” as section 626 of the city charter contemplates, and the justice, therefore, had no jurisdiction to try the case. It cannot be disputed that the “Account, the Cause of Action,” was a statement of some kind of a claim of the .plaintiff against the defendant.

It is true there is little of detail or description to it, but it was a notice to the