Lamm v. Burrell

• Citation: 14 A. 682,69 Md. 272
• Parties: LAMM ET AL. v. BURRELL.
• Decision Date: 13 June 1888
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

14 A. 682

69 Md. 272

LAMM ET AL. v. BURRELL.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

June 13, 1888

Appeal from circuit court, Harford county.

Bill for an injunction by Daniel R. Burrell against John Lamm and W. Oliver Hughes, sheriff of Harford county. From an order granting an injunction defendants appeal.

Argued before ALVEY, C.J., and BRYAN, MILLER, IRVING, ROBINSON STONE, and MCSHERRY, JJ.

H Arthur Stump and Wm. Young, for appellants.

William L. Cooley and W. W. Preston, for appellee.

MCSHERRY J.

The bill of complaint in this case was filed by the appellee on the equity side of the circuit court for Harford county. It contains but two averments. These are: First, "that a certain John Lamm, of Cecil county, in said state, has illegally, wrongfully, and unjustly procured a writ, now in the hands of W. Oliver Hughes, sheriff of said Harford county, which said writ directs the said sheriff to eject your orator, Daniel R. Burrell, from certain lands and premises situated in the city of Havre-de-Grace, on Warrent street, in said city, now in the occupancy and possession of your orator;" and, second, "that said writ was illegally, wrongfully, and unjustly procured, and its service and enforcement would work great injury and detriment to the rights of your orator, under the laws of the state." The prayer of the bill was for an injunction to restrain the service and the execution of the said writ. The court passed an order granting the injunction. The defendant Lamm answered the bill, and forthwith prayed an appeal to this court under section 21 of article 5 of the Code of Public General Laws. The sheriff of Harford county, the other defendant, answered subsequently.

The sufficiency of the averments of the bill is the only question raised by this appeal. While the answer of the defendant is indispensable as a condition of his right to bring the case to this court under the section of the Code referred to, ( Furlong v. Edwards, 3 Md. 99,) we are not permitted to look to it or to consider it in disposing of the question presented by the appeal, ( Alexander v. Worthington, 5 Md 471.) If the allegations of the bill are sufficient, according to the established rules of equity pleading, the order will be affirmed, without inquiring into their truth or falsity. If, upon the other hand, the bill be defective in substance, and if its averments be vague, indefinite, and insufficient, the order appealed from will be reversed, without any regard to the merits of the controversy. It is quite a familiar principle, recognized in the fifteenth of the rules adopted by this court for the regulation of the pleading and practice of courts of equity in this state, that every bill in equity must contain a clear statement of facts upon which the plaintiff relies for relief. It is equally well settled that, to warrant the court in issuing an injunction, a full and candid disclosure of all the facts must be made. There must be no concealment, and the res gest must be represented as they actually are. Johnston v. Glenn, 40 Md. 200; Commissioners v. Coal Co., 45 Md. 470. The court must be informed by the bill itself, and its accompanying exhibits, if any, of every material fact constituting the case of the plaintiff, in order that it may be seen whether there is a just and proper ground for the application of so summary a remedy. Strong prima facie evidence of the facts on which the plaintiff's equity rests must be presented to the court. Laupheimer v. Rosenbaum, 25 Md. 219. The bill before us does not meet these requirements. The...