Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Nationwide Motor Sales Corp. v. Trusty
Citations: 24 Md. App. 407; 331 A.2d 76; 1975 Md. App. LEXIS 581Docket: No. 254
Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland; January 28, 1975; Maryland; State Appellate Court
A Greyhound bus passenger was injured in a collision involving a vehicle driven by a person other than its owner. The passenger filed a declaration in the Superior Court of Baltimore City naming Greyhound Lines, Inc., the vehicle's owner, and the driver as defendants. The vehicle's owner and driver then filed a third-party claim against Nationwide Motor Sales Corporation, claiming liability due to an alleged defective accelerator from a vehicle purchased from Nationwide shortly before the accident. Nationwide was served on September 25, 1971. On November 14, 1972, a verdict was returned against the driver, and on January 29, 1973, the driver obtained a default judgment against Nationwide for failing to respond to the third-party claim. Nationwide subsequently filed a motion to strike the default judgment under Maryland Rule 625, asserting it had not been served. This motion was denied without prejudice on February 14, 1974. A second motion to strike the default judgment, again citing lack of service and claiming a meritorious defense, was filed soon after. During the hearing for the second motion, the court ruled on April 10, 1974, ultimately denying Nationwide’s motion to strike. Nationwide appealed, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion under Rule 625. However, the appeal was dismissed due to Nationwide's failure to provide the required transcripts of the trial or the hearings on the motions, which is the appellant's responsibility under Maryland Rule 1026(c)(2). The court noted that without a proper record, it could not review the case and that the denial of the first motion did not extend the period for revisory power over the judgment. Nationwide could still seek relief based on "fraud, mistake or irregularity" if a meritorious defense exists. The appeal was dismissed with costs assigned to Nationwide.