Walsh v. State ex rel. Walsh

Brent, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. At the argument' of this case the Court declined to hear the counsel for the appellee, and intimated that the ruling appealed from would be affirmed. We think that the appeal lies in this case, as the motion to strike out is for cause', and that it is not within the decision of Townsend vs. Chew, 31 Md., 249 . There the motion was made before the term expired, and the judgment having been stricken out, it was held to be within the discretion of the Court, because within the term at which the judgment was rendered.

But even in that case an appeal would lie if the motion to strike out was for cause, and was overruled by the Court. The objection that one of the plaintiffs was an infant cannot be maintained. There is no proof that such is the fact from anything to be found in the record. The objection that separate suits ought to be brought cannot be maintained.

The action is brought in the name of the State, under Art. 93, sec. 156, of the Code. That section provides that a guardian may give one bond, where there are several wards entitled to portions of the same estate, and that- said bond shall be liable to suit by all or either of the wards named therein. Under the language of this section, which seems to be too plain to admit of but one construction, we think this suit