Tiernan v. Hammond

Robinson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Upon a motion to strike out a judgment after the term is past, the Courts in this State exercise a general equitable jurisdiction, and will therefore consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, and require that the party making the application shall appear to have acted in good faith and with ordinary diligence. Relief will net be granted where a party has been guilty of laches or unreasonable delay. 18 Md., 130 . In this case the original judgment was recovered against Philip T. A. Hammond, and it is a conceded fact, that at the time of signing the paper purporting to be a supersedeas judgment, the appellee was an infant under the age of twenty-one years.

That he had the right to avoid the paper thus signed by him cannot be denied, and the only question to be decided, is whether he has lost that right by laches or unreasonable delay. The judgment of supersedeas was signed by him on the 23rd of November, 1862, and filed in the clerk's office on the 29th of December following. In October, 1863, a /?. fa. was issued and returned nulla bona. Afterwards Mary Hammond who also signed the supersedeas judgment died, and in February, 1873, her death was suggested, and a writ of scire facias issued tojevive the judgment.

This ⁵⁵³ writ was returned non est, and then renewed, and returned ‘ ‘ made knoion. ’ ’ At the July Term, ISIS, the first term after the writ was served, the appellee appeared, and put in four pleas. To the first and second the appellant joined issue, and to the third and fourth he demurred. The Court sustained the demurrer, and thereupon the appellee moved to strike out the supersedeas judgment, on the ground of fraud, surprise, irregularity, infancy and other reasons not necessary to be stated here. It thus appears by record, that from the tune the scire facias was served upon the appellee, he utterly denied his liability on account of the judgment of supersedeas, and immediately took