Maryland case law › Rhodes Hardwood Flooring Co. v. Blue Ridge Flooring Co.

Rhodes Hardwood Flooring Co. v. Blue Ridge Flooring Co.

218 Md. 329 (1993) · Court of Appeals of Maryland
Court of Appeals of MarylandDisposition: Reversed✓ Good law
HoldingBlue Ridge Flooring Company, Inc.

PER Curiam. On September 6, 1955, Blue Ridge Flooring Company, Inc., (Blue Ridge), filed a non-resident attachment proceeding in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County against Rhodes Hardwood [and] Flooring Corporation (Rhodes). The attachment was laid in the hands of the Lane Lumber Company (Lane) as garnishee. On October 11, 1955, the garnishee filed a plea confessing it held credits due and owing Rhodes in the sum of $13,452.71.

Subsequently an amended plea was filed stating that the garnishee, by agreement of the parties, had released to Rhodes all of such credits except the sum of $5,000. On December 9, 1955, Rhodes filed a motion to quash the attachment, and on the same day filed a motion for a summary judgment, accompanied by an affidavit in support of the motion. An opposing affidavit was filed by Blue Ridge before the motion was heard. Both motions—for a summary judgment and to quash—were heard by the court on March 9, 1956.

On the same day the motion for a summary judgment 331 in favor of Rhodes against Blue Ridge was granted, and the judgment was entered as directed. At the same time, the court also granted the motion to quash the attachment. On May 14, 1956, Lane, instead of paying the $5,000 it had retained to Rhodes, paid the sum into the registry of the court. On July 13, 1956, Rhodes filed a petition claiming that the $5,000 paid into court belonged to it.

On the same day it filed a motion for another summary judgment, together with an affidavit and certain invoices in support thereof, to which Blue Ridge promptly filed another opposing affidavit. On November 11, 1957, Blue Ridge moved that the order of court dated March 9, 1956, “dismissing the attachment against * * * [Rhodes] be stricken, and [that] the attachment be reinstated * * At another hearing on May 2, 1958, the court rescinded its previous orders of March 9, 1956, whereby it had granted the motion for a summary judgment in favor of Rhodes against Blue Ridge as well as the motion to quash the attachment, and granted a judgment of condemnation absolute for $5,000 in favor of Blue Ridge against

This is a preview of Rhodes Hardwood Flooring Co. v. Blue Ridge Flooring Co.. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.