Olson v. Love

Brune, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appeal in this suit in equity involving the custody of a child is from an order of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County denying the appellant’s suggestion for removal. The appellant’s contention in this Court is that she is entitled, as a matter of right, under Maryland Rule 542 a, to a removal of the case. Since her claim is not founded upon an alleged constitutional right and the denial thereof, even if we were to assume that the Circuit Court had power to order the removal of an equity suit, its power to act would be discretionary, and an order granting or refusing removal would constitute only ⁵⁰⁴ an interlocutory order, and not a final order subject to immediate appeal.

Code (1957), Art. 5, sec. 1; Tidewater Portland Cement Co. v. State, 122 Md. 96 , 89 A. 327 ; Lee v. State, 161 Md. 430, 433 , 157 A. 723 . An observation by Judge Delaplaine in Heslop v. State, 202 Md. 123, at 126 , 95 A. 2d 880 , that it was unnecessary to decide a question as to immediate appeal-ability, which was not presented (because no immediate appeal had been taken), but which might have involved a challenge to Lee , could hardly be said to have impaired Lee , which Judge Delaplaine had just cited with approval. More recently, the Lee case was cited and quoted with approval and at some length in Pearlman v. State, 226 Md. 67, 71-72 , 172 A. 2d 395 . We think that the