Salem Construction Corp. v. Tompkins

Per Curiam. The appellee filed no brief. The appellants, seeking to reverse a judgment against the builder of a party line wall and the purchaser of the property on which the wall stood, in favor of a neighboring owner, for deprivation of ³⁴⁶ lateral support caused by the wall, filed a record extract which fell fatally short of meeting the mandatory requirements of Maryland Rule 828 b. The failure to print more than a small part of the testimony, none of a number of exhibits and but an extract from the trial court’s ■opinion makes it impossible for this Court to decide the correctness of the trial court’s determinations on liability and damages.

Rule 828 b 1 requires the printed extract to . “contain such parts of the record as may reasonably be necessary for the determination of the questions presented by the appeal,” including “ [s] o much of the evidence * * * as is material to any question the determination of which depends upon the sufficiency of the evidence * * The Court will not pass upon matter not printed in the extract since it is not readily available to each member of the Court. McBurnie v. McBurnie, 214 Md. 210 ; Lustine v. State Roads Commission, 217 Md. 274 ; Silverman v. Ruddle, 234 Md. 353 ; Prime Contractors v. M. & C. C., 241 Md. 55 . Rule 828 i provides that for violation of section b of Rule 828 this Court “may dismiss the appeal.” We have concluded that this sanction should be invoked in this case. Gmurek v. Kajder, 203 Md. 437 ; Jacobs Instrument Company v. Comptroller, 216 Md. 290 ; Mor v. Prince George’s County Animal Rescue League, Inc., 256 Md. 202 .

Appeal dismissed, costs to be paid by appellants.