Clayton v. Shoemaker
| Decision Date | 22 April 1887 |
| Citation | 9 A. 635,67 Md. 216 |
| Parties | CLAYTON v. SHOEMAKER AND ANOTHER, ADM'RS, ETC. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from circuit court, Baltimore city.
Robert Gilmor and H. C. Kennard, for appellant.
Brown & Brune, for appellees.
The appellees are administrators c. t. a. of the estate of Samuel M. Shoemaker, and, in their representative capacity, have possession of the property known as Guy's Hotel in the city of Baltimore. The testator held this property under a lease for 99 years, renewable forever. It appears that, when the hotel was erected, a space of two feet 9 and three-fourths inches in breadth, located on the western extremity of the lot, was not included within the building it forming part of an alley, about six feet wide, extending from Court-House lane to the back yard of a restaurant on Fayette street. This alley has been used for many years by the appellant, and those under whom he claims, and by persons who wished to obtain access to the restaurant. There was a gate at the northern end connecting with Court-House lane which was open during the day, and closed at night by the keeper of the restaurant, who was a tenant of the appellant. The alley has not been used as an outlet from the hotel, but the open space which it forms is supposed to be of value for the purposes of light and ventilation. The owners of the hotel never interfered with the use of the alley until very recently, when the appellant proceeded to close it up by building thereon, and has inserted the ends of his joists in the western wall of the hotel in order to make it a party-wall for the structure which he has begun to erect. The intervention of a court of equity was then invoked by the appellees. An injunction was granted, and has been made perpetual. By the terms of this injunction the appellant is prohibited from erecting his building, and is required to remove the building materials from the ground in dispute, and the joists, beams, and rafters inserted in the western wall of the hotel. The decree thus finally determines the title to the lot of ground in dispute, and from this decree an appeal has been taken.
The appellees contend that their proper title covers the land in dispute. They concede that the appellant has acquired, by long and uninterrupted user, an easement, but nothing more. On the other hand, the appellant claims a fee-simple title to the soil. He asserts that, even if the lot in dispute is not included within the metes and bounds in his deed, he has acquired a good title by adverse possession; that the erection of a gate at the entrance of the alley, and the opening and closing of said gate at the option of the appellant, and of those under whom he claims, were acts sufficient to give notice to the opposite party that his title was imperiled by an adverse and exclusive claim and occupation; and that, such exclusive claim and occupation having been continuous and uninterrupted for a period of more than 20 years, the claimant and occupant has thus acquired a title to the land in controversy.
Here then, we are confronted with questions directly relating to the title to land, and although, in some cases, where irreparable injury might result from delay, a temporary injunction ought to be granted until the legal title can be determined in the proper forum, a court of equity will not pass a decree operating as a final decision of the rights of parties. To do so would be tantamount to a substitution of chancery jurisdiction for that of courts of law in deciding questions directly relating to the title to real estate; and it is apparent that such an assumption of jurisdiction would have a strong tendency to...
To continue reading
Request your trial