S. W. Barrick & Sons, Inc. v. J. P. Councill Co.

PER Curiam. The sole question on this appeal is which of two executions is entitled to be satisfied first out of the proceeds of a sale by the sheriff of the personal property of the judgment debtor. One execution was issued simultaneously with the entry (on February 15, 1960) of a judgment by confession on a confessed judgment note. The other was issued immediately following the extension by the court (on February 17, 1960) of a judgment by default.

On the theory that the judgment by confession was not “final in its nature” within the meaning of Maryland Rule 5 o, ¹⁴⁰ the claim of the holder of the judgment by default (Barrick) is that it is entitled to a preference over the holder of the judgment by confession (Councill). The twofold basis for the contention is that the judgment by confession could not and did not become final until the expiration of the thirty-day period prescribed by Rule 645 b and that—since the judgment had not been “entered” pursuant to Rule 619—Councill was without authority to direct the issuance of an execution under the provisions of Rule 622 a. The contentions are without merit. It is clear, we think, that a judgment by confession—since it has all of the incidents of other judgments (Remsburg v. Baker, 212 Md. 465, 468 , 129 A. 2d 687 [1957])—is a final judgment within the meaning of the rule even though it may be vacated, opened or modified for good