Martin v. Long

³⁴⁹ Stockbridge, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The record in this case presents hut a -single question for determination, viz.: Did the Circuit Court for Allegany County act correctly in its- refusal to strike out a judgment originally entered by default and subsequently extended for the sum >of $1,385, in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant ? It is conceded in the case that the motion to strike out was- not made until after the lap-se of the term,, so that the judgment had become enrolled, and the question presented by this appeal is far from being a, new1 one in this State or elsewhere. The law governing a, case of this character is fully set out in 2 Poe, PI. & Pr., section 392, et seq., where the author says: “In passing upon applications to strike out judgments when such applications, are made during the same term at which the judgments were entered, our courts usually act liberally; and, upon reasonable proof -of merits, and other equitable circumstances, strike out the judgments and. let the defendant in to be, beard; but where the application to strike out is made by the defendant after the lapse of the term, and when the judgment has consequently become enrolled, much greater s-trictness is- observed.

In these cases- the court- acts in the exercise of its quasi equitable powers-, and will take into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, nor will the1 judgment be stricken out except upon clear p-roof of fraud, deceit, surprise or irregularities; * * * -and the application must disclose meritorious-, bona fide and substantial defense, for it- is- a necessary principle' of our jurisprudence that- judgments are presumed to have heen made up after careful deliberation, and consequently that they should not lightly be interfered with.” The same rule is stated by quite a number -of other text writers, and has been applied in this- State in a number of cases. See Pumpian v. Rice, 135 Md. 364 ; Foxwell v. Foxwell, 122 Md. 263 ; Sunderland v. Braun Packing Co., 119 Md. 125 ; Houston v. Wilcox, 121 Md. 91 ; McCambridge v. Walraven, 88 Md. 378 , and Malone v. Topfer, 125 Md. 157 . ³⁵⁰ The motion to strike out does not appear in full in the record, hut what it must have contained can he determined from: the evidence which was produced at the hearing of the motion. There is certainly in none of