History
  • No items yet
midpage
Milgray Electronics, Inc. v. Vitro Electronics
260 Md. 382
Md.
1971
Check Treatment
Per Curiam.

Milgray Electronics, Inc. of New York has made its second appearance before us in its attempts to resist jurisdiction under the Maryland “Long Arm” statute, Code (1957, 1965 Repl. Vol.) Art. 75, § 96. See Vitro Elec*383tronics v. Milgray, 255 Md. 498, 258 A. 2d 749 (1969). This appeal is from an order denying Milgray’s motion under Maryland Rule 323 to quash service of process and dismiss the action against it. On our own motion and in accordance with Rule 835 a 2 we have determined that its appeal must be dismissed. “It has long been established that no appeal will lie from an order overruling a motion to quash a writ of summons, [citations omitted] because it is interlocutory only, and not a final judgment.” Hillyard Constr. Co. v. Lynch, 256 Md. 375, 379, 260 A. 2d 316 (1970) and cases cited there: Tvardek v. Tvardek, 257 Md. 88, 92-93, 261 A. 2d 762 (1970).

Appeal dismissed and case remanded for further proceedings. Costs to be paid by the appellants.

Case Details

Case Name: Milgray Electronics, Inc. v. Vitro Electronics
Court Name: Court of Appeals of Maryland
Date Published: Jan 11, 1971
Citation: 260 Md. 382
Docket Number: No. 183
Court Abbreviation: Md.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.