Case Name: Richter and Wheat vs. Pue and Wife
Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1838-06
Citations: 9 G. & J. 475
Docket Number: 
Parties: Richter and Wheat vs. Pue and Wife.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Court of Appeals of Maryland
Volume: 9
Pages: 475–476

Head Matter:
Richter and Wheat vs. Pue and Wife.
June, 1838.
Under the acts of 1835, ch. 346 and 380, an appeal will not lie from an order granting, or from the refusal to dissolve an injunction, until the defendant has hied his answer; and when an answer has been ruled insufficient upon exceptions, it is regarded as no answer.
Appeal from Chancery.
This was an appeal under the acts of 1835, ch. 348 and 380, from an order granting, and from an order refusing to dissolve an injunction, issued against the appellants upon the bill of the appellees. The chancellor, in his order of the 2d May, 1838, refusing to dissolve the injunction, had sustained certain exceptions of the complainants to the answers of the appellants, and ordered them to make and lile a good and sufficient answer to the hill of complaint, on or before the 20th June, 1838. The appeal was taken on the 4th June, 1838.
At this term, Alexander for the appellee, moved to dismiss this appeal, upon the ground that under the acts of 1835, no appeal will lie until after answer by the defendants. . The right was. given on condition of “ the answer of the defendant or defendants being first filed,” — and he contended that an answer ruled insufficient upon exceptions, was, according to the practice of the court of chancery, as no answer.
Mayer, contra.

Opinion:
By the Court:
appeal dismissed.