Opinion ID: 2261730
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The filing of the cross-bill

Text: The Faulkners rely upon Hardy v. Brookhart, 252 Md. 107, 249 A.2d 148 (1969), in support of their contention that the trial judge erred when he permitted the filing of the cross-claim after the date specified in the rule. They say that [t]he facts of this case are analogous to those in Hardy ... wherein [we] upheld the trial court's denial of a motion to file a late Counter-claim. What they overlook is that Judge McWilliams said for the Court in Hardy, Here we are concerned only with the question whether, in the circumstances, Judge Weant's denial of Hardy's motion amounts to an abuse of discretion. Id. at 114. After a careful review the Court concluded that there was no evidence that the trial judge abused his discretion and without such evidence we shall not disturb his ruling. Id. at 115. In A & P Co. v. Royal Crown, 243 Md. 280, 285, 220 A.2d 598 (1966), Judge Hammond said for the Court, The fact that the cross claim was not filed within fifteen days from the expiration of the last day for filing the responsive pleading to the claim to which the cross claim is addressed, as Rule 314 d 2 requires, would not prevent it being filed later by permission of the trial judge. See also Rule 309 b. The basis for review is whether the chancellor abused his discretion. We find no abuse.