Chappell v. Stewart

• Decision Date: 08 January 1896
• Citation: 33 A. 542,82 Md. 323
• Parties: CHAPPELL v. STEWART.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

33 A. 542

82 Md. 323

CHAPPELL v. STEWART.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

January 8, 1896

Appeal from circuit court of Baltimore city.

Suit by Thomas C. Chappell against David Stewart. Decree for defendant. Complainant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before ROBINSON, C.J., and BRYAN, McSHERRY, FOWLER, BRISCOE and ROBERTS, JJ.

Julian J. Alexander and Thomas C. Chappell, for appellant.

Red. C Stewart, for appellee.

BRYAN J.

Thomas C. Chappell filed a bill in equity against David Stewart. Without entering minutely into the details of the bill of complaint, it may be stated that he charged that the defendant had employed detectives to follow him, and watch him wherever he should go; and that this conduct caused him great inconvenience and annoyance, interfered with his social intercourse and his business, and caused grave suspicions to be entertained about him, so as greatly to damage his financial credit. It is also alleged that the defendant intended to continue the same course of conduct towards the complainant. The bill prayed for an injunction to restrain and prohibit the defendant from the aforesaid conduct, and for a decree for damages, and for general relief. He also filed a special motion for a preliminary injunction. The defendant filed a demurrer and answer combined together. It was maintained that the bill of complaint did not entitle the complainant to any relief in equity, because it did not set forth any legal or equitable right which the defendant was injuring, because it did not set forth any danger of irreparable damage, and for other reasons; and the answer denied the charges of the bill. The court refused to grant the preliminary injunction. The defendant, by leave of the court, amended his pleading by changing its form so as to make it simply an answer, and nothing more. Afterwards the court passed an order sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the bill, with costs. The court acted inadvertently in passing an order on the demurrer, when, in consequence of an amendment of the defendant's pleading, there was no longer a demurrer in the case. We shall see whether this oversight inflicted any injury on the plaintiff. As the answer denied the allegations of the bill, and the motion for a preliminary injunction was heard on bill and answer, it was of necessity that the motion should be denied; and as the bill, assuming that all its allegations were true, did not contain any matter cognizable in equity, it ought then and there to have been dismissed. Courts of equity exercise a very extensive jurisdiction in cases involving...