England v. Montgomery Ward & Co.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

England v. Montgomery Ward & Co.

241 A.2d 554, 249 Md. 717, 1968 Md. LEXIS 656

CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland

DecidedMay 9, 1968

DocketNo. 244

StatusPublished

This text of 241 A.2d 554 (England v. Montgomery Ward & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

England v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 241 A.2d 554, 249 Md. 717, 1968 Md. LEXIS 656 (Md. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER Curiam.

The appellant did not, as Maryland Rule 828 a requires, “cause to be printed, either as a separate volume or as an appendix to his brief, extracts from the record which shall include the parts thereof provided for by section b of this Rule * * *” (§ b requires at the least the printing of the judgment appealed from and the opinion or charge of the lower court and the material evidence). There simply was no printed extract since [718]*718the appellee did not choose to avail itself of the opportunity given by Rule 828 c to supply what the appellant had omitted.

The appeal will be dismissed under Rule 835 b (5) because of appellant’s failure to comply to any extent with Rule 828.

Had we decided the appeal on the merits, the judgment would have been affirmed.

Appeal dismissed, costs to be paid by appellant.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER Curiam.

The appellant did not, as Maryland Rule 828 a requires, “cause to be printed, either as a separate volume or as an appendix to his brief, extracts from the record which shall include the parts thereof provided for by section b of this Rule * * *” (§ b requires at the least the printing of the judgment appealed from and the opinion or charge of the lower court and the material evidence). There simply was no printed extract since [718]*718the appellee did not choose to avail itself of the opportunity given by Rule 828 c to supply what the appellant had omitted.

The appeal will be dismissed under Rule 835 b (5) because of appellant’s failure to comply to any extent with Rule 828.

Had we decided the appeal on the merits, the judgment would have been affirmed.

Appeal dismissed, costs to be paid by appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 A.2d 554, 249 Md. 717, 1968 Md. LEXIS 656, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/england-v-montgomery-ward-co-md-1968.