Smith v. State

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Smith v. State

123 A. 60, 143 Md. 541, 1923 Md. LEXIS 129

CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland

DecidedJune 26, 1923

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 123 A. 60 (Smith v. State) 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

Smith v. State, 123 A. 60, 143 Md. 541, 1923 Md. LEXIS 129 (Md. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

*542 Thomas, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this Court two appeals were docketed from the judgments of tire court below, one by Harry W. White or Harold W. White, as No. 24 Appeals of the April Term, and one by Luther Smith, S'eth Pteterson, Hay Porter (Prater) and Ernest B. Neely, as No. 25 Appeals of the same term, both appeals being in one record. In this case, No. 25 Appeals, a motion has been filed to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the appeal was not taken within thirty days from the entry of the judgments. But, as we have said in No. 24, the docket entries show t-hat-an appeal on behalf of all of the defendants was noted on the day the judgments were entered. A further written order for appeal and affidavit were not necessary in order to accomplish their appeal, and the only purpose and effect of an affidavit in such cases is to stay the execution of the sentence. Code, art. 5, sec. 80. The motion to dismiss the appeal must therefore be overruled, and for the reasons we have stated in No. 24, the judgments appealed from will be affirmed.

Judgments affirmed, with costs.

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

*542 Thomas, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this Court two appeals were docketed from the judgments of tire court below, one by Harry W. White or Harold W. White, as No. 24 Appeals of the April Term, and one by Luther Smith, S'eth Pteterson, Hay Porter (Prater) and Ernest B. Neely, as No. 25 Appeals of the same term, both appeals being in one record. In this case, No. 25 Appeals, a motion has been filed to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the appeal was not taken within thirty days from the entry of the judgments. But, as we have said in No. 24, the docket entries show t-hat-an appeal on behalf of all of the defendants was noted on the day the judgments were entered. A further written order for appeal and affidavit were not necessary in order to accomplish their appeal, and the only purpose and effect of an affidavit in such cases is to stay the execution of the sentence. Code, art. 5, sec. 80. The motion to dismiss the appeal must therefore be overruled, and for the reasons we have stated in No. 24, the judgments appealed from will be affirmed.

Judgments affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A. 60, 143 Md. 541, 1923 Md. LEXIS 129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-state-md-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack