Kloze v. PROVIDENT SAVINGS BANK

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Kloze v. PROVIDENT SAVINGS BANK

154 A.2d 711, 220 Md. 469

CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland

DecidedSeptember 23, 2001

Docket[No. 23, September Term, 1959.]

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 154 A.2d 711 (Kloze v. PROVIDENT SAVINGS BANK) 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

Kloze v. PROVIDENT SAVINGS BANK, 154 A.2d 711, 220 Md. 469 (Md. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This appeal is from an order directing that the sum of $1440.97, paid into court by the complainant, be applied to the payment and satisfaction of the claim of the Provident Savings Bank of Baltimore upon the complainant’s note held by it, referred to in the bill for declaratory decree. The complainant, appellant, seeks to raise a number of points in connection with the note. He argues that the note is void, on the ground that the Bank had not obtained a license to operate under the “Maryland Industrial Finance Law,” Code (1957), Art. 11, sec. 163, et seq., and that the interest and charges in the note exceeded those permitted by said article. We do not reach these questions. The payment into court by the complainant, of the “total balance” he alleged to be due on the loan, was in legal effect a tender, under Maryland Rule 325 a, and its acceptance by the Bank, under Rule 325 b 1, put an end to the controversy and terminated the only justiciable issue. Cf. Gamble v. Sentman, 68 Md. 71, 76, and Hodgson v. Phippin, 159 Md. 97, 100. See also Patuxent Oil Co. v. County Commissioners of Anne Arundel County, 212 Md. 543, 548.

The appellant also seeks to raise on this appeal the propriety of a previous order of court dismissing a petition of the complainant to have the appellee, the Bank Commissioner, *471 made a party to the proceeding. This appellee filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as to him, on the ground that the order in question was final and appealable forthwith, and that hence the appeal from the subsequent order was not in time under Rule 812, and could not properly bring before us the correctness of the previous order. We think the point is well taken. See City of Baltimore v. Moore, 209 Md. 516, 523, and Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co. v. Samuel R. Rosoff, Ltd., 195 Md. 421, 433.

Order affirmed, with costs. Appeal dismissed, as to the appellee, Kirkwood, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

This appeal is from an order directing that the sum of $1440.97, paid into court by the complainant, be applied to the payment and satisfaction of the claim of the Provident Savings Bank of Baltimore upon the complainant’s note held by it, referred to in the bill for declaratory decree. The complainant, appellant, seeks to raise a number of points in connection with the note. He argues that the note is void, on the ground that the Bank had not obtained a license to operate under the “Maryland Industrial Finance Law,” Code (1957), Art. 11, sec. 163, et seq., and that the interest and charges in the note exceeded those permitted by said article. We do not reach these questions. The payment into court by the complainant, of the “total balance” he alleged to be due on the loan, was in legal effect a tender, under Maryland Rule 325 a, and its acceptance by the Bank, under Rule 325 b 1, put an end to the controversy and terminated the only justiciable issue. Cf. Gamble v. Sentman, 68 Md. 71, 76, and Hodgson v. Phippin, 159 Md. 97, 100. See also Patuxent Oil Co. v. County Commissioners of Anne Arundel County, 212 Md. 543, 548.

The appellant also seeks to raise on this appeal the propriety of a previous order of court dismissing a petition of the complainant to have the appellee, the Bank Commissioner, *471 made a party to the proceeding. This appellee filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as to him, on the ground that the order in question was final and appealable forthwith, and that hence the appeal from the subsequent order was not in time under Rule 812, and could not properly bring before us the correctness of the previous order. We think the point is well taken. See City of Baltimore v. Moore, 209 Md. 516, 523, and Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co. v. Samuel R. Rosoff, Ltd., 195 Md. 421, 433.

Order affirmed, with costs. Appeal dismissed, as to the appellee, Kirkwood, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 A.2d 711, 220 Md. 469, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kloze-v-provident-savings-bank-md-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack