Pumpian v. E. L. Rice & Co.

Stockbridge, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This case reaches this Court on appeal from the Superior Court of Baltimore City, and the sole point involved in the appeal is the refusal of that Court to strike out a judgment rendered against the appellant for the sum of $149.60.' The suit was brought on an open account under the Speedy Judgment Act applicable to Baltimore City, and a judgment ³⁶⁵ by default for lack of appearance and affidavit of defense was entered on the 10th of March, 1919. On the 17th of March the judgment was extended before the Court, and on June 13th the motion now in question to strike out that judgment was filed, and the same day overruled. The ground upon which the judgment was asked in the petition to be stricken out was a misnomer of the plaintiff, the narr. having named the plaintiff as. “E. L. Rice & Co., a body corporate,” and the judgment being in favor of “Elver L. Rice.” From the dates given it is apparent that the motion to strike out the judgment was. not made until after the term at which the same was entered, and while great latitude is. allowed to a trial court in the matter of striking out judgments, where the motion is made at the same term, if the motion is deferred until after the close of the term, a much stricter rule obtains.

The law is this State with regard to the striking out of judgments is comprehensively but concisely stated in Section 392 of 2 Poe, Pleading and Practice, and the language there used has been repeatedly quoted with approval in the decisions in this State. Thus in Malone v. Toper, 125 Md. 163 , quoting from Mr. Poe’s work, this Court says: “In passing on an application made during the same term at which the judgment was entered our Courts usually act liberally and upon reasonable proof of merit and of equitable circumstances strike out the judgment and let the defendant in to be heard.” The Court then adds that there must be reasonable proof of circumstances which make it inequitable that the judgment should be allowed to¡ stand. So in the case of Houston v. Wilcox, 121. Md. 100, this Court speaking through Judge Briscoe, and referring to the case of