Clark v. Vannort

• Decision Date: 16 November 1893
• Citation: 27 A. 982,78 Md. 216
• Parties: CLARK v. VANNORT.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

27 A. 982

78 Md. 216

CLARK v. VANNORT.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

November 16, 1893

Error to circuit court, Kent county.

Summary proceeding by William J. Vannort against Nehemiah D. Clark to obtain possession of certain premises. A judgment for said Vannort was affirmed by the circuit court, and Clark brings error. Writ of error quashed.

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

Hope H Barroll, for plaintiff in error.

James A. Pearce and Richard D. Hynson, for defendant in error.

McSHERRY J.

This case has been brought up by petition as upon writ of error to the circuit court for Kent county. It appears by the record that the appellee made application in writing to a justice of the peace in that county, and represented that the appellant had been hired to work for him, and had been allowed to live in a house on his farm during the time the appellant might continue in the service of the appellee; that some months thereafter the appellant was discharged from the service of the appellee, and was notified to surrender possession of the house, which he refused to do, but, on the contrary, forcibly detained possession thereof. The appellee asked to be restored to the possession of the premises. A summons was thereupon issued by the justice, requiring the appellant to show cause why restitution of the possession of the premises should not be forthwith made to the appellee. Clark, the appellant, then requested the magistrate to transmit the papers to some other justice for trial, but, this being refused, the case was subsequently heard, and a judgment was entered in favor of the appellee for a restitution of the premises and for costs. Clark then prayed an appeal to the circuit court for Kent county. After the case reached that court, Clark filed an affidavit, wherein he claimed that the title to land was involved by reason of the fact that he was as he alleged, a tenant of the appellee, and held the premises under a lease which had not then expired; and he further averred in the same affidavit that no written notice had ever been served on him to quit the premises. Upon these allegations he founded a motion to reverse the judgment of the magistrate, but the court, after hearing testimony which, of course, does not appear in the record, affirmed the judgment appealed from. Thereafter a petition was filed for the removal of the record into this court as upon writ of error, and the errors assigned were: First, that the justice of the peace had no jurisdiction to hear the case, because it did not appear upon the face of the proceedings before him that a notice in writing had been given to Clark by Vannort to remove from and quit the premises; secondly, because the justice had been notified that the title to land was in controversy; and, thirdly, because, if the proper proceeding be treated as one for forcible detainer, the proper method was by inquisition, or by view of the premises, and of the detainer. A motion has been filed to dismiss the appeal, or strictly speaking, to quash the writ of error.

If the magistrate had jurisdiction to hear and determine the case this court obviously has no authority to review either his judgment or that of the circuit court on appeal from him. For the correction of any error committed by him, if he possessed jurisdiction, the law has provided a remedy by allowing an appeal to the circuit court; and the decision of that tribunal upon such an appeal is final and conclusive. The inquiry, then, is, did the magistrate have jurisdiction in the premises? The proceeding was for a forcible detainer, not for a forcible entry and detainer; nor was it one by a landlord against his tenant for holding over after the expiration of his term. There is no statutory provision in the Maryland Code upon the subject of forcible entry or detainer apart from the brief declaration contained in section 6, art. 53, of the Code, that the proceedings relating to a tenant holding over "shall apply, so far as may be, to cases of forcible entry and detainer." Except for the provision just cited, proceedings in forcible entry and detainer or forcible detainer alone would be controlled exclusively by such of the early acts of parliament as are still in force in Maryland. Forcible...