Cole v. Hynes

• Decision Date: 02 March 1877
• Parties: WILLIAM COLE v. REBECCA V. HYNES and EMILY J. HYNES.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

46 Md. 181

WILLIAM COLE v. REBECCA V. HYNES and EMILY J. HYNES.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

March 2, 1877

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Baltimore County.

The case is stated in the opinion of the Court.

The cause was argued before BARTOL, C.J., BRENT, GRASON, MILLER ALVEY and ROBINSON, J.

Joseph C. Boyd and Bernard Carter, for the appellant.

By the 14th section of Article 51, Maryland Code, it is declared "But no justice of the peace shall have jurisdiction in actions where the title to land is involved."

The very nature of the cause of action in this case, shows that the title to land is "involved."

The action is for the purchase money of land sold by the appellees to the appellant.

To sustain this action the plaintiff must show affirmatively that she has a good title to the land, and must show a tender of the deed. Owings vs. Baldwin, 8 Gill, 350, 355; Lawrence vs. Dale, 11 Vermont, 549; Judson vs. Wass, 11 Johnson, 525; Wilde vs. Fort, 4 Taunton, 334; Luckett vs. Williamson, 31 Missouri, 54; Washington & Turner vs. Ogden, 1 Black Sup. Ct., 450; 2 Taylor on on Ev., sec. 1070.

In the case of Dietrich vs. Swartz, 41 Md., 201--this Court has said in construing the 14th section of Article 51 of the Code, "that its effect is to deny jurisdiction to justices of the peace in actions of ejectment, trespass, q. c. f. and the like, where title to land is or may be necessarily and directly in issue." And in the case of Randle vs Sutton, 43 Md., 64, cited by appellee, the Court says: "It must appear to the Court from the nature of the action itself, that it is a case in which the title to land is necessarily and directly in issue between the parties."

As we have above shown in an action of assumpsit for the purchase money of land, the title of the vendor is "directly and necessarily in issue." In what action, therefore is the title to land more directly involved?

Wm. S. Keech, for the appellees.

There is really but one point involved in the case, and that is: Had the justice of the peace jurisdiction to try and decide the case originally? If so, this appeal must be dismissed, as it is well settled that there is no appeal to this Court from the decision and judgment of a Circuit Court, in case of an appeal to the Circuit Court from the decision of a justice of the peace, if the justice had jurisdiction to try the case originally. Randle vs. Sutton, 43 Md., 64.

The title to land was not involved in this suit, within the meaning of the 14th section of the 51st Article of the Code, as interpreted by this Court in the case of Dietrich vs. Swartz, 41 Md., 196, and in the case of Randle vs. Sutton above referred to.

GRASON J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

This action was instituted before a justice of the peace in Baltimore County, and judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, and an appeal therefrom was taken to the Circuit Court of said county. A motion was then made by the defendant, for the reversal of the judgment upon the ground, as was alleged in the motion, that it appeared "on the face of the cause of action on which the judgment was rendered, that the justice of the peace rendering the the same, had no jurisdiction of said cause of action, inasmuch as the title to land is involved in said case." The motion was overruled, and the trial proceeded, and after receiving the evidence set out in the bill of exceptions, the Judge of the Circuit Court affirmed the judgment from which the appeal was taken, and this appeal from the judgment of affirmance was brought to this Court.

Section 14 of Article 51 of the Code provides, that "no justice of the peace shall have jurisdiction in actions where the title to land is involved." This action, it is alleged, was brought to recover a balance of purchase money, due on a sale of land by the plaintiffs to the defendant, and that this appeared on the face of the cause of action filed in the case. The account or cause of action which was the foundation of the suit, is not contained in the record, and we are therefore without the proper means of knowing whether it shows upon its face, that the title to land was or was not involved in the suit, and, in its absence, we must presume that the motion to reverse the judgment of the justice of the peace was rightly overruled.

In this State, b...