Case Name: The Peabody Heights Company of Baltimore City vs. Philip B. Sadtler, John P. Sadtler and George T. Sadtler, Trustees under the will of Philip B. Sadtler
Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1884-04-18
Citations: 62 Md. 145
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Peabody Heights Company of Baltimore City vs. Philip B. Sadtler, John P. Sadtler and George T. Sadtler, Trustees under the will of Philip B. Sadtler.
Judges: 
Reporter: Maryland Reports
Volume: 62
Pages: 145–146

Head Matter:
The Peabody Heights Company of Baltimore City vs. Philip B. Sadtler, John P. Sadtler and George T. Sadtler, Trustees under the will of Philip B. Sadtler.
Appeal dismissed — Buie 27 of Supplemental Buies respecting Appeals.
"Where a judgment is-rendered on the 3rd of December, 1883, and the appeal is not taken until the 3rd of March, 1884, the same will be dismissed, not having been taken within two months from the date of the judgment, according to the exigency of Rule twenty-seven of Supplemental Rules respecting appeals, which went into effect on the 1st of September, 1883.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. This was an action of ejectment brought by the appellant against the appellees to recover the parcel of land described in the declaration. Issue was joined on the plea of not guilty, and the case was tried by consent before the Court, (Fowler, J.,) a jury trial being waived. Prayers were offered on both sides. The Court refused those of the plaintiff, and granted those of the defendants. The ■plaintiff excepted. The verdict was for the defendants, and judgment was entered thereon on the 3rd of December, 1883, for costs. On the 3rd of March, 1884, the plaintiff appealed.
The cause was argued before Alvey, O. J., Yellott, Stone, Miller, Robinson, Irving,' and Bryan, J.
Winfield J. Taylor, for the appellant.
Frederick W. Story, and John T. Morris, for the appellees.
(Decided 18th April, 1884.)

Opinion:
By the Court:
By the Additional or Supplemental Rules respecting appeals, which took effect on the 1st of September, 1888, it is provided that the appeal must he taken within two months from the date of the judgment, instead of nine months as prescribed by the original Rules. In the present case, this rule has not been complied with. The record shows that the judgment was rendered on the 3rd of December, 1883, and the appeal was not taken until the 3rd of March, 1884. The appeal must therefore he dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.