Greenbaum v. Harrison
| Decision Date | 15 January 1918 |
| Docket Number | 68,69. |
| Citation | 103 A. 84,132 Md. 34 |
| Parties | GREENBAUM et al. v. HARRISON et al. HARRISON et al. v. GREENBAUM et al. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeals from Circuit Court of Baltimore City; John J. Dobler, Judge.
"To be officially reported."
Bill by Charlotte Taylor Harrison and Frank T. Harrison, her husband against Caroline Greenbaum, widow, Harry S. Greenbaum and Leon E. Greenbaum, trustees, and in their own right. Decree favoring plaintiff, and both parties appeal. Reversed in part, and affirmed in part, and remanded, with directions.
Argued before BOYD, C.J., and BRISCOE, THOMAS, PATTISON STOCKBRIDGE, and CONSTABLE, JJ.
Jesse Slingluff and William L. Marbury, both of Baltimore, for plaintiffs.
C Alex, Fairbank, Jr., and Leon E. Greenbaum, both of Baltimore, for defendants.
There are two appeals in the record now before us, but as they are from the same decree, they will be considered and disposed of in one opinion.
The controversy grows out of and relates to the use in common of a 4-foot alley and a 30-foot court, leading into German street, and the use of which the plaintiff claims, in connection with a lot and building owned by her, and known as No. 13 German street, Baltimore City. The questions in the case are presented by a bill in equity, wherein certain definite and specific relief is asked by the plaintiff: First, that she may be restored to and confirmed in her rights, in the alley and court; second, that the defendants may be required to take down and remove all the walls or other obstructions they have put or caused to be put in or upon the bed of the alley 4 feet wide or in or upon the bed of the 30-foot court, so as to leave the same wholly unoccupied by or with any of the walls or obstructions; and, third, that the defendants may be enjoined from preventing or interfering with the free and unobstructed use in common of the 30-foot court and alley 4 feet wide by the plaintiff and all others, the holders, possessors, and occupiers of the premises now or formerly known as No. 13 West German street as described in the bill.
The defendants answered the bill and for a defense contend: First, that the lower court was without jurisdiction to grant the relief sought by the bill, because a disputed question of title is presented and involved in the decision; second, because the easement over the 30-foot court and alley has been abandoned, if not by the estate of Robert A. Taylor, then by the plaintiff since her acquisition of the property; third, because the easement has been lost by an adversary possession which binds the trustees, life tenant, and remaindermen under the will of Robert A. Taylor; and, fourth, that they own the fee-simple estate to the bed of the 30-foot court, and also all of the property on the east and west sides of the court, which is all of the property that has any practical use of the court.
The case was heard by the court below upon bill, answer, and proof, and from a decree dated the 23d of March, 1917, both the plaintiff and the defendants have appealed.
The lower court held upon the pleadings and evidence that the legal right to the use in common with the abutting owners of the 4-foot alley, and a certain part of the 30-foot court, remained vested in the plaintiff, and her right was not ousted by any adversary possession on the part of the defendants or their predecessors in title. The court was also of the further opinion that the damage which would result to the defendants from a decree requiring them to remove the buildings which had been constructed upon parts of the alley and court would be out of any reasonable proportion to the injuries caused to the plaintiff by the presence of the buildings, and declined to order the removal of the buildings constructed thereon prior to the institution of the suit.
The decree, as passed and as here appealed from, is as follows: That the plaintiff is entitled to the free use, in common with the defendants, of the court and alley, except in so far as the court and alley are, or either of them is, actually occupied by buildings or parts of buildings constructed or located therein prior to the institution of this suit, and the defendants are hereby restrained and enjoined from establishing or maintaining or continuing to maintain any gate or other obstruction other than the building or walls of buildings which are now built upon the court and the alley, which would interfere with the use by the complainant of the parts of the alley and the court, and it appearing to the court from the evidence that the damage done to the property of the complainant bordering upon the court or the alley by reason of the construction of the buildings or parts of buildings in the bed of the same by the defendants is nominal only. It is thereupon further adjudged, ordered, and decreed that the plaintiff recover from the defendants the sum of $1 and the costs of this suit.
We will first consider the objection by the defendants to the bill upon the question of jurisdiction and that is whether the proceeding in this case involves a real disputed question of title to the easement in question, because if that be true it is too clear for argument that a court of equity would be without jurisdiction to determine it and could not grant the relief sought by the bill until the title had been established at law.
The law upon this question has been settled by a long line of adjudications in this court, and a reference to a few of the leading cases will be sufficient. Clayton v. Shoemaker, 67 Md. 216, 9 A. 635; Gulick v. Fisher, 92 Md. 364, 48 A. 375; Whalen v. Dalashmutt, 59 Md. 250; Bernei v. Sappington, 102 Md. 190, 62 A. 365; Arey v. Baer,
In the present case, however, the plaintiff's legal and record title to the easement in question is practically undisputed and is free from any reasonable doubt, and there was no occasion to require the parties to resort to a court of law for its adjudication, as was done, under a different state of facts, in the cases, just cited. In Oberheim v. Reeside, 116 Md. 274, 81 A. 590, this court held, in a case involving a question of jurisdiction, that when the legal title sought to be protected is not doubtful the case is a proper one for redress in a court of equity.
We do not find here, said the court, sufficient ground of objection to the plaintiff's title to justify us in subjecting them to the expense and delay of a preliminary proceeding at law, and that where a trespass works a destruction of the estate in the character in which the complainant was entitled to enjoy it, a proper case is presented for relief by injunction. White v. Flannigain, 1 Md. 525, 54 Am. Dec. 668; Balto. Belt Co. v. Lee, 75 Md. 596, 23 A. 901; Long v. Ragan, 94 Md. 464, 51 A. 181.
In the present case, there is no real question of any controverted fact, or evidence enough to show any ground for dispute as to the execution or delivery of the deeds as far back as 1833 creating and providing for the easement in question, or as to the valid title of the plaintiff to the lot and land to which it was to be appurtenant. There is no real issue of adverse user by the defendants that would defeat the plaintiff's record title on such grounds of objection as would entitle the defendants to have the plaintiff resort to a court of law for its determination and to subject her to the expense and delay of a preliminary proceeding at law. We are therefore of opinion, from the pleadings and evidence, that the plaintiff has presented a proper case for relief in a court of equity, and the court below was right in sustaining the bill. Callaway v. Forest Park Co., 113 Md. 7, 77 A. 141; Nicolai v. Balto. City, 100 Md. 579, 60 A. 627; Canton Co. v. Balto. City, 106 Md. 69, 66 A. 679, 67 A. 274, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 129.
The record contains a large amount of testimony introduced for the purpose of supporting the various contentions of the respective parties, but we do not deem it necessary, for the purposes of the conclusion we have reached, upon the main branch of the case, to discuss it in detail, or to set it out at length.
It is very clear and manifest, from the pleadings and the evidence that the period of adversary possession did not run against the plaintiff until the death of Louisa C. E. Taylor, the life tenant under the will of Robert Taylor, because she had no right of entry until the death of the life tenant. It appears that Robert Taylor, the testator, died in 1863, leaving a last will and testament by which he devised the property known as 13 West German street, with its appurtenant rights, the right of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial