delivered the opinion of the Court.
The motion to dismiss this appeal must prevail. It has been settled by repeated decisions that a judgment is subject to the control of the Court until the lаpse of the term at which it was rendered, and that from an order striking it out, passed upon a motion made during that term, no appeal lies. Rutherford vs. Pope, 15 Md., 579; Hall vs. Holmes, 30 Md., 558; Townsend vs. Chew, 31 Md., 247.
The record in this case shows that at the Januаry Term, 1879, of the Court of Common Pleas, McLaughlin recovered a judgment against Ogle and Townsend for $180, and on the 22nd of January, during the same term, the defendants made a motion to strike it out. Reasons were assigned
It is plain thе motion was made during the term at which the judgment was rendered, and that upon that motion tbe judgment was striсken out. It is true there was some delay before the final action of the Court, but this does not affеct the question as to the right to appeal. That depends upon the time when the motion wаs made, and not upon the time when it was decided. In some of the cases before referrеd to there was much longer delay, a delay of several terms, before final action on the motion was had. The fact that the motion was at first overruled on the 10th of September is not important, because shortly afterwards, and at the sаme term, the Court reconsidered this action, rescinded its overruling order and thus left the case open upon the original motion. We have nо doubt of the power of the Court thus to reconsider, and correct,
Appeal dismissed.