Thompson v. Giordano

Orth, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. On 5 July 1971 the courts of limited jurisdiction of Maryland, composed of a hodgepodge of magistrates, justices of the peace, People’s Courts, the Municipal Court of Baltimore City and the Housing Court of Baltimore County, were supplanted by the District Court of Maryland with uniform jurisdiction throughout the State. 1 This was accomplished by amendments to the Constitution of Maryland — Art. IV, §§ 41A to 41-1, inclusive, implemented by public general laws — Code, Art. 26, §§ 139-158, and rules — Maryland District Rules and Chapter 1300 of the Maryland Rules of Procedure. By the provisions of § 41-1 (e) of the Constitution, any matter pending on the day before the first Monday in July 1971 ²⁶⁸ before a justice of the peace or any People’s Court, the Municipal Court of Baltimore City or the Housing Court of Baltimore County shall be decided or otherwise disposed of in the District Court in the county or in Baltimore City in which the matter was pending on the day before the first Monday in July 1971, unless thereafter lawfully removed. Under § 41-1 (f) all papers, dockets, files, books, records, monies, and other property belonging to or pertaining to or in any such courts on that date shall be transferred to the District Court in the appropriate county or in.

Baltimore City. 2 The statutes pertaining to the District Court, with exceptions not here pertinent, were effective 5 July 1971. Acts 1970, ch. 528, § ,2. The Maryland District Rules and Chapter 1300 of the Maryland Rules of Procedure were adopted by the Court of Appeals to take effect 5 July 1971. The order of 28 June 1971 adopting them spelled out their applicability: “ORDERED, that the Maryland District Rules and Chapter 1300 of the Maryland Rules of Procedure shall take effect July 5, 1971, and shall be applicable to all cases pending as of July 5, 1971, except that Chapter 400 (Depositions and Discovery) of the Maryland District Rules shall be applicable only to cases filed on or after July 5, 1971, and that all cases heard prior to July 5, 1971, shall be governed for purposes of appeal by the law applicable to appeals prior to July 5, 1971 * * It is clear that all cases pending in the People’s Court of Baltimore on 4 July 1971 are to be decided or otherwise disposed of in the District Court in Baltimore City.

The law governing their disposition in the District Court ²⁶⁹ in Baltimore City is as provided in Code, Art. 26, §§ 139-158, in the Maryland District Rules, and in Chapter 1300 of the Maryland Rules of Procedure, each effective 5 July 1971. This is so as to the statutes because § 157 thereof expressly repealed all provisions of the Annotated Code of Maryland, 1957 edition, as amended, and those provisions of the public local laws applicable to the various counties and the City of Baltimore which were inconsistent with the provisions of any section of the District Court subtitle of Art. 26. It is so as to the Maryland District Rules and Chapter 1300 of the Maryland Rules of Procedure because the Court of Appeals so provided in the order adopting them. And for purposes of appeal, such cases, by the same order, are governed by the law effective 5 July 1971, not by the law applicable to appeals prior to that date.

We therefore review the cases in the light of the law effective 5 July 1971. The District Court and Trial by Jury Trial by jury in District Court civil cases is provided by Code, Art. 26, § 145 (c) (3) (ii) : “In all civil actions where the amount in controversy exceeds five hundred dollars ($500.00) either party shall have a right, within such time as prescribed by rule, to demand a trial by jury in which event the case shall be transmitted forthwith to the circuit court in the county in which the cause of action arose or was filed, or to the Superior Court of Baltimore City if the cause of action arose or was filed in the City of Baltimore.” 3 Formerly the right to a jury trial was guaranteed when the amount in controversy exceeded five dollars. ²⁷⁰ Ch. 789, Acts 1969, ratified 3 November 1970 substituted “five hundred dollars” for “five dollars.” Code, Public Local Laws of Baltimore City (Everstine, 1969) § 15-6 (b) as in effect prior to 5 July 1971 provided that in any cause of action in which the People’s Court enjoyed concurrent jurisdiction, namely where the amount in controversy was more than $1000 up to and including $2500, “any defendant desiring trial by jury shall have the right to have the cause transferred to any one of the aforesaid law courts, but in the absence of designation to the Baltimore City Court, upon such terms for costs and formal pleading as may be prescribed by rule of the People’s Court and the Supreme Bench of Baltimore''City.” However, Part IX of the Rules of the People’s Court provided that when any defendant in any suit involving an amount of money in excess of $100 desired a trial by jury, he could have such case removed to a law court of Baltimore City upon notice to the clerk of the People’s Court “provided such notice be not later than fourteen days after service of summons” and provided further that there be affixed to the notice a certification that a copy was served on or mailed to all other parties or their attorneys of record. Amendment VII to the Constitution of the United States deals with trial by.jury in civil cases brought in the Courts of the United States. Minneapolis & St. Louis R.R. Co. v. Bombolis, 241 U. S. 211 .

It provides: “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.” See Ross v. Bernhard, 396 U. S. 531 . For a comprehensive discussion of the history of jury trials in civil cases see Capital Traction Co. v. Hof, 174 U. S. 1 . M.D.R. 343 prescribes the procedure whereby a party entitled to a jury trial may obtain it. First he must elect it as provided by the Rule or it is waived.

M.D.R. 343, § a. The ²⁷¹ constitutional guarantee to trial by jury is not contravened by reasonable statutory regulation providing the manner in which the election is to be exercised, as, for example, a rule of court requiring affirmative written election for a jury trial. Maryland Community Developers, Inc. v. State Roads Commission, 261 Md. 205 ; Houston v. Lloyd’s Consumer Acceptance Corp. 241 Md. 10 . A plaintiff entitled to a jury trial in an action over which the District Court has exclusive original jurisdiction 4 may elect trial by jury only by a separate writing filed with his statement of claim.

M.D.R. 343, § b. A defendant entitled to a jury trial may elect such trial only by a separate writing filed within the time prescribed by M.D.R. 302 for filing notice to defend, that is within 14 days after service of the summons and statement of claim upon him. 5 M.D.R. 343, § c. Effective 1 June 1972 the Court of Appeals added a new § e to M.D.R. 343. It provides: “At any time prior to the transmission of the record on transfer of the action to the Circuit Court the District Court may, sua sponte or on motion, determine that an election for jury trial has not been timely filed and the action shall thereupon be tried in the District Court.” Removal in the District Court As above discussed a case may be transmitted from the District Court in Baltimore City to the Superior ²⁷² Court of Baltimore City upon proper demand for a trial by jury.

But now a case so removed must be tried by jury. Maryland Rule 343 (f) (2), effective 1 June 1972, sets out an exception to the withdrawal of the election of a jury trial in a court of general jurisdiction by providing: “An action removed from the District Court shall be tried by jury.” As of 5 July 1971 removal from the District Court to a court of general jurisdiction may be effected only by demanding a jury trial. Removal of a case pending before any District Court judge for the reason that the defendant does not believe he can have a fair and impartial trial by the District Court judge before whom the case is pending shall be removed upon proper suggestion to another District Court judge sitting in or assigned to the same district, but not to a court of general jurisdiction. Code, Art. 26, § 145 (f).

See M.D.R. 542. Appeals from the District Court Appeals from the District Court of Maryland are provided by Code, Art. 26, § 156. An appeal from a judgment of the District Court in a civil case originally tried in Baltimore City shall be taken to the Baltimore City Court, subsection (a). The appeal may be taken within 30 days of final disposition, subsection (c).

If the case involves a claim of less than $500 it is tried de novo, except that by agreement of the parties it may be heard and decided on the record made in the District Court, subsection (a). See Md. Rule 1326. If the case involves a claim of $500 or more, then the appeal shall be heard and decided on the record made in the District Court, ibid. 6 All procedural matters having to do with the appeal shall be as prescribed by rule of the Court of Appeals, subsection (e). The provisions of Chapter 1300 of the Maryland Rules ²⁷³ of Procedure, govern an appeal from the District Court.

The appeal shall be made by filing an order of appeal with the clerk of the District Court within 30 days from the date of the judgment appealed from. Md. Rule 1312. When the case on appeal is to be heard de novo, the rules of procedure governing cases instituted in the court hearing the appeal shall apply, “except as they relate to the form and sufficiency of the pleadings.” Md. Rule 1314. A case on appeal from the District Court shall not be tried before a jury.

As above pointed out, all cases involving a claim of $500 or more are heard and decided on the record, and cases involving a claim of less than $500 may be so heard and determined by agreement. As to the cases heard de novo, they are limited to those involving a claim of less than $500 and with such amount involved a jury trial is not constitutionally mandated. Art. XV, § 6, Constitution of Maryland. The statutory right to a jury trial is given only when the amount in controversy exceeds $500.

Code, Art. 26, § 145 (c) (3) (ii). 7 Md. Rule 343, entitled “Jury Trial-Election” applicable to courts of general jurisdiction, formerly included as § d under the heading “Appeals and Removals From Courts of Limited Jurisdiction” a provision reading as follows: “In an appeal or removal from a court of limited jurisdiction, such election [of a trial by jury] shall be made by the appealing or removing party not later than five (5) days after the action has been filed in the court of general jurisdiction. The opposing party shall make his election within fifteen (15) days after the date of service upon him of summons or notice of removal.” However, § d so providing was deleted from the Rules as of 1 June 1972 by order of the Court of Appeals and such deletion was made applicable “to all proceedings thereafter commenced and, so far as practicable, to all proceedings then pending.” It is patent that the rule changes, including the deletion of former § d of Md. Rule ²⁷⁴ 343, were necessitated by the adoption of the District Court system. The deletion gives clear indication that it was the intention that even a case tried de novo on appeal from the District Court was not to be before a jury. The Instant Cases The three cases comprising this appeal were pending in the People’s Court of Baltimore City on the day before the first Monday in July 1971.

Each was a civil action of tort arising from a motor vehicle accident; each claimed $2500 damages; each was transferred to “The District Court of Maryland, District 1, Civil Division, successor to People’s Court of Baltimore City, effective 7/5/71.” The first case, Francesco Giordano v. Kenneth Lee Thompson and Yellow Cab Co., (the Giordano case), 8 was commenced 11 June 1971 by the filing of a statement of claim in the People’s Court of Baltimore City. Trial was set for 16 September. Yellow Cab was served on 30 June. It is not clear when Thompson was served, although