Chappell v. Lacey

• Citation: 26 A. 499,77 Md. 172
• Parties: CHAPPELL v. LACEY ET AL.
• Decision Date: 14 March 1893
• Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland

26 A. 499

77 Md. 172

CHAPPELL v. LACEY ET AL.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

March 14, 1893

Appeal from court of common pleas of Baltimore city.

Action by James J. Lacey and William R. Beatty, trading as James J. Lacey & Co., against Thomas C. Chappell, trading as P. S. Chappell & Son, on an account. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before ALVEY, C.J., and ROBINSON, BRYAN, IRVING, McSHERRY, FOWLER, PAGE, and ROBERTS, JJ.

Cabell Bruce, for appellant.

Meredith Reese, for appellees.

BRYAN, J.

Lacey and others sued Chappell, trading under the name and style of P. S. Chappell & Son. The suit was brought in the court of common pleas of Baltimore city. After the return of the writ the defendant moved for a judgment of non pros., alleging that he was a resident of Baltimore county. The plaintiffs, treating this motion as a plea in abatement, filed a replication stating--First, that the defendant carried on a regular business in Baltimore city; second, that he habitually engaged in an avocation or employment in Baltimore city. The defendant rejoined, and in his rejoinder stated that the plaintiffs at the time of the institution of the suit had actual notice that the defendant was, and had always been, a resident of Baltimore county, and also stated his principal business, avocation, and employment was carried on in Anne Arundel county. The plaintiffs demurred, and the court sustained the demurrer, and entered judgment thereon. The defendant appealed.

Code, art. 75, § 132, provides that any person who resides in a county, but carries on any regular business or habitually engages in any avocation or employment in another county, may be sued in either county. Of course, under the eleventh rule of interpretation, the city of Baltimore is included in this provision. The section says nothing about the defendant's principal business. If he carries on regular business or is habitually engaged in employments in several different counties, it might be impossible for any one except himself to determine which of the different occupations was his principal business. The law has not imposed on plaintiffs the burden of this inquiry. We regard the meaning of the section as very clear, and therefore must affirm the judgment. Judgment affirmed.