Opinion
[No. 6, September Term, 1958.]
Decided September 18, 1958.
APPEAL — Instructions to Jury — No Review on, If No Objection. Where there is no objection below to the trial court's instructions to the jury, there is nothing for this Court to consider on appeal with respect to the alleged impropriety of the instructions. Maryland Rules 554 d, 554 e. p. 2
APPEAL — New Trial — Ordinarily None from Trial Court's Action on Motion for — Within Its Sound Discretion. The refusal of a motion for a new trial being within the sound discretion of the trial court, ordinarily there is no appeal from the action of the court in granting or refusing such a motion. p. 2
J.E.B.
Decided September 18, 1958.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Prince George's County (GRAY, C.J.).
Action by Agnes Estelle Hill and by Frank Hill, her husband, against Helen Coleman and against Charles S. Honaker, Jr., for damages for personal injuries sustained by Mrs. Hill, and for medical expenses and loss of services and of consortium sustained by Mr. Hill, as the result of an automobile collision. From the judgment in favor of Mr. Honaker against the plaintiffs for costs, and from the refusal to grant them a new trial in their case against Mrs. Coleman, plaintiffs appeal.
Judgment in favor of Mr. Honaker affirmed, and appeal from the refusal to grant a new trial dismissed, all costs to be paid by the appellants.
The cause was argued before BRUNE, C.J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.
Frederic Orr Louden, with whom was Ewing C. Whitaker on the brief, for the appellants.
Hal C.B. Clagett, with whom were Joseph Bernstein and Sasscer, Clagett Powers on the brief, for Mrs. Coleman, appellee.
Edward C. Bell for Mr. Honaker, appellee.
The appeal from the judgment in favor of Charles S. Honaker, Jr., against the appellants for costs is affirmed and the appeal from the refusal to grant a new trial in the case of the appellants against Helen Coleman on the ground that the damages awarded by the jury were inadequate is dismissed. All costs shall be paid by the appellants.
If, as the appellants claim, the trial court in its instructions to the jury did not fairly cover the substance of the instruction requested by them in the case against Charles S. Honaker, Jr., one of the appellees, it was incumbent upon the appellants to object and state the grounds for such objection. Since they did not object to the instructions there is nothing for us to consider on this appeal with respect to the alleged impropriety of the court's instruction. Maryland Rule 554 d and e. See also Rephann v. Armstrong, 217 Md. 90, 93, 141 A.2d 525 (1958).
The refusal of the motion for a new trial in the case against Helen Coleman was within the sound discretion of the trial court. Ordinarily there is no appeal from the action of the court in granting or refusing such a motion. Wash., B. A.R. Co. v. Kimmey, 141 Md. 243, 250, 118 A. 648 (1922). See also Chiswell v. Nichols, 139 Md. 442, 443, 115 A. 790 (1921), and the cases therein cited, and Snyder v. Cearfoss, 186 Md. 360, 367, 46 A.2d 607 (1946).