Mayor of Baltimore v. Ideson

Miller, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This suit, brought by the appellees against the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, was instituted under the Act of 1864, ch. 6. The action was commenced on the 11th of November, 1876, and the summons made returnable to the second Monday of the same month, which was the next succeeding return day prescribed by this statute. At this return day, the defendants appeared by counsel, and on the second Monday of December following, which was the return day next succeeding the appearance, the defendants having filed no plea as required by the 7th section of the Act, the Court rendered a judgment by default for want of a plea and affidavit of defence.

Afterwards, the defendants made a motion to strike out this judgment by default, and filed reasons therefor, but the Court overruled the motion and assessed the damages of the plaintiffs at the sum of $215. The defendants then made a motion in arrest of judgment, which the Court also overruled, and on the 7th of April, 1877, rendered final judgment for the plaintiffs for $215, with interest from date, and costs of suit, and from this judgment the defendants have appealed . Now assuming for the sake of the argument, and without so deciding, that this appeal brings up for review the action of the Court in overruling the motion to strike out the judgment by default, we find no error therein. The ⁵⁴⁴ only reasons requiring notice that were relied bn in support of the motion, are that no proper cause of action was filed with the declaration, and that the affidavit accompanying the declaration is defective.

The account filed with and annexed to the declaration, is for certain ornamental trees and shrubs, and for labor in planting them, and is made out against “ Messrs. Register & Boone, Commissioners of Madison Square, Baltimore, Maryland.” And the affidavit, by one of the plaintiffs, is “ that there is justly due and owing by the Mayor and City