Maloy v. McLean

Stogiíbridge, J., delivered the opinion of the Oourt. When the Circuit Court Yo. 2 of Baltimore City decided the case of McLean et al. v. Maloy et al., the decree concluded with these words: “The costs to abide the action of the Court of Appeals.” On appeal to this Court ( 136 Md. 467 ), this Court affirmed the decree of the Circuit Court jSf o. 2, and concludes— ‘‘Decree affirmed, with costs.” After the decision of this Court, to which reference has already been made, an attachment for costs was issued from the Circuit Oourt Yo. 2 of Baltimore City, upon the receipt of the mandate of this Court. A motion was then made to quash the writ of attachment, and in the ruling upon that motion the judge of the Circuit Court Yo. 2 divided his decree into four separate paragraphs. The first two of these were as follows: “First.

That under the proper construction of Buies 38 and 40 of the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the costs of printing briefs in the Court of Appeals are not chargeable as part of the costs of the case, except as provided in Section 2 of Buie 38, although the practice has been otherwise according to evidence produced by the defendants, and accordingly the motion to quash will be and it is hereby granted as to the amount of $475.00, being the amount paid for briefs in the Oourt of Appeals, by the defendants, William M. Maloy et al.” “Second: That the remaining costs in the Court of Appeals, amounting to $23.20, the docket costs in ³⁰⁸ this court amounting to $106.20, the cost o£ the certified copy of opinion of Court of Appeals, amounting to $2.00. and the costs of taking and transcribing the court copy of the defendants’ testimony, amounting to $989.50, aggregating in all $1,120.90, are properly chargeable as costs, and the motion to quash as to that amount will be, and it is hereby, denied.” From this decree cross-appeals were taken by the parties to the case, and those appeals constitute the record in the present case. The matter at issue upon this appeal will accordingly be seen to be one of practice and interpretation of the rules of this Court rather than one of substantive law. A number of phases of this question were considered in the case of Doub v. Mason, 5 Md. 612 , in an opinion rendered by Chiee Justice LeG-rand, but the conditions now presented differ so widely from those in the Doub v. Mason case, supra, as to make that opinion not in point in the present case. As now presented to this Court, the case is practically narrowed to the propriety, under the rule, of charging the cost