Moody v. Moorman

Burke, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The question presented by this appeal is a simple one, and may be disposed of in a few words. The record shows that on the 13th of February, 1907, the appellants filed a bill in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City praying for the cancellation of a deed mentioned in the bill, and for an injunction. Subsequently, by leave of the Court, an amended bill was filed.

An answer to the amended bill was filed by the defendants in which all the equities of the bill were denied.- On the first day of March, 1907, upon petition of the plaintiffs, leave was granted to the parties to the cause to take testimony before anyone of the standing examiners of the Court. No evidence was taken, and on the nth day of April, 1907, the Court, upon the petition of the defendants, laid a rule upon the plaintiffs to close the taking of their testimony on or before the 2nd day of May, 1907. A copy of this order was served upon the solicitors for the plaintiffs within the time limited therein. The record states that in accordance with the first equity rule of the Court the case was placed upon the trial calendar, but a copy of this rule does not appear in the record.

Notice that the case had been placed upon the trial calendar, and would stand for hearing on bill, answer, exhibits and motion to dissolve the injunction when reached in due course on the calendar was served upon counsel for the plaintiffs on the 30th day of April, 1907. The plaintiffs failed to comply with the order of the 2nd day of May, 1907, •as to the closing of their testimony, and the Court on the 29th •of May, 1907, passed a decree dissolving the injunction and •dismissing the bill. From this decree the plaintiffs appealed. The sole ground upon which they rely for a reversal of the decree is that it was passed in contravention of section 2‡1, Article 16, Code igo/ji.

It is