199 A. 815 | Md. | 1938
One month from the day No. 29, Roach v. Board of ZoningAppeals,
The appellants in No. 30 could have been parties to *9
the appeal to the City Court taken by Mrs. Roach in No. 29, and, having failed to participate in that case, their rights are precluded and they are bound by the decision in that case, and on the appeal in her case. Holt v. Moxley,
Assuming that the two churches could have been parties to the appeal to the City Court, the position taken by them in their petition could be no better than if they had been parties on the appeal to that court, and their petition is no more than a motion for a new trial, which is not appealable. 1 Poe, Pl. Pr., sec. 349.
Appeal in No. 30 dismissed, with costs.