Nu Car Carriers, Inc. v. Everett

Powers, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The Annotated Code of Maryland, Courts Article, § 12-301, provides in part that, “ * * * a party may appeal from a final judgment entered in a civil * * * case by a circuit court.” The term “final judgment” is defined in § 12-101 (f) to mean “ * * * a judgment, decree, sentence, order, determination, decision, or other action by a court, ³¹¹ including an orphans’ court, from which an appeal, application for leave to appeal, or petition for certiorari may be taken.” The apparent dilemma created by defining a phrase in terms of the thing being defined is explained by a Revisor’s Note under subsection (f). It says, “This definition does not attempt to specify what is an appealable final order. That is left to case law, as at present.” The case law has been consistent for well over 100 years.

In Hazlehurst v. Morris, 28 Md. 67 (1868), the Court of Appeals said, at 71: “The law has been clearly settled in this State, that ‘no appeal can be prosecuted to this court until a decision has been had in the court below, which is so far final, as to settle and conclude the rights of the party involved in the action, or denying to the party the means of further prosecuting or defending the suit. When the proceedings below shall be terminated, an appeal will then lie, and all the errors of the court below, in the progress of the cause, will be proper subjects for complaint of the party, and for the correction of this court.’ Boteler v. State, 7 G. & J. 112 ; Welsh v. Davis, 7 Gill, 366 ; Green v. Hamilton, 16 Md. 328 . The order, passed in the court below, did not settle and conclude the rights involved in the cause; nor was it of such a character as to deny to the party the means of defending the suit, and was not, therefore, so far final as to be a proper subject of appeal. This appeal must, therefore, be dismissed.” In Brooks v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 261 Md. 278 , 274 A. 2d 345 (1971), the Court of Appeals said, at 280: “We have consistently held that appeals will lie only from final judgments which settle the rights of the parties or conclude the cause, Tvardek v. Tvardek, 257 Md. 88 , 261 A. 2d 762 (1970); Hillyard Constr.

Co. v. Lynch, 256 Md. 375 , 260 A. 2d 316 (1970).” ³¹² William Randall Everett filed a suit in the Superior Court of Baltimore City against Nu Car Carriers, Inc. and its driver, Melvin Lloyd Lamb, Jr., claiming damages for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle collision. Everett’s wife joined with her husband in a separate count in which they jointly claimed injury to their marital relationship. Trial of the case was held before a jury and Judge James W. Murphy in the Superior Court of Baltimore City, beginning 13 November 1975 and ending on 18 November 1975 when Judge Murphy declared a mistrial after the jury was unable to agree. At the close of all of the evidence the defendants, Nu Car Carriers, Inc. and Lamb, had moved for a directed verdict.

That motion was denied. They filed a timely motion for judgment n.o.v., Maryland Rule 563, § a.l. and § b.2. That motion was heard, and on 8 January 1976 it was denied. The following day the court entered an order setting the case for trial.

Nu Car Carriers, Inc. and Lamb entered an appeal to this Court “with respect to the denial of Defendants’ Motion for Judgment N.O.V.”