History
  • No items yet
midpage
Thomas v. Malster
14 Md. 382
Md.
1859
Check Treatment
Tuck, J,,

delivered the opinion of this court.

In expressing our concurrence with the ruling of the court below, we do so on the single ground that the subject-matter, in a different form, was passed upon by the court on discharging the rule laid at the instance of the plaintiff on the defendants, to show cause why the judgment should not be made complete, and taken as a judgment, “nunc pro tunc” it being well settled that when a matter has been once decided by a court of competent jurisdiction, it is final as between the par*388ties. We express no opinion on the correctness of that decision, for whether right or wrong, the parties are concluded, the remedy being by an appeal if the party conceived himself aggrieved. Beall vs. Brown's Adm'r, 12 Md. Rep., 550.

(Decided July 29th, 1859.)

Judgment affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Thomas v. Malster
Court Name: Court of Appeals of Maryland
Date Published: Jul 29, 1859
Citation: 14 Md. 382
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.