Mullikin v. Hughlett
| Decision Date | 18 January 1923 |
| Docket Number | 123. |
| Citation | 121 A. 244,142 Md. 539 |
| Parties | MULLIKIN v. HUGHLETT. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Talbot County; Lewin W. Wickes, Judge.
"To be officially reported."
Bill by Madie T. Hughlett against John R. Mullikin. From an order continuing in force a preliminary injunction, defendant appeals. Reversed, and bill dismissed.
Argued before BOYD, C.J., and BRISCOE, THOMAS, PATTISON, URNER, and OFFUTT, JJ.
James C. Mullikin and Alfred L. Tharp, both of Easton, for appellant.
Joseph B. Seth and W. Mason Shehan, both of Easton (Seth, Shehan & Marshall, of Easton, on the brief), for appellee.
The effect of the order from which this appeal has been taken was to continue in force a preliminary injunction subject to the future order of the court and to the provision that it should not prevent the defendant from instituting a proper suit against the plaintiff to determine the title to the property involved in this proceeding. As originally granted, the injunction restrained the defendant and his agents, servants employees, and licensees "from going upon or using any part" of the property described in the bill of complaint, and "from instituting any suit or action either at law or in equity," against the plaintiff "her servants, agents, employees, and licensees for damages for trespass upon said property of any kind or character." This prohibition was modified by the order appealed from only to the extent that the defendant is permitted to bring an appropriate action against the plaintiff for the purpose of having the title to the property adjudicated.
The decision to be reviewed was rendered after final hearing on bill, answer, and evidence. It was alleged in the bill that the plaintiff is the owner of a tract of land, known as "Crosiadore," on the north side of the Choptank river in Talbot county; that the defendant "has been vexatiously pretending to have title to a portion of said property," known as "Dickinson's Marsh," and "has been interfering with" the plaintiff's tenants "by demanding rent of them and doing other acts and making other statements and throwing a cloud of suspicion upon her title"; that the defendant brought a suit against one of the plaintiff's tenants for trespass upon the land in question, and the trial of the case in the circuit court for Talbot county resulted in a decision in favor of the plaintiff's tenant, who had gone upon the land under a claim of right in that capacity; and that two similar suits against another person brought by the defendant were dismissed by him when they were called for trial. It is admitted by the bill that the defendant claims title to Dickinson's Marsh by virtue of a patent from the state of Maryland issued in the year 1916, but the validity of the patent is disputed. The bill avers that the plaintiff is greatly annoyed and subjected to expense and trouble by the necessity of defending her tenants, servants, and employees against suits brought by the defendant, and is without remedy to prevent "such multiplicity of suits" except by resort to a court of equity, and that, being herself possessed of the land, she cannot bring an action of ejectment against the defendant, and that she cannot sue him in trespass because he avoids any personal entry on the property, but licenses others to disturb her possession. With the bill were filed copies of certain instruments upon which the plaintiff's claim of title is based.
The answer of the defendant denied that he had ever claimed title to any part of the plaintiff's land, and asserted that the suits by the defendant to which the bill refers were brought for trespasses on a tract of land known as "Duck Island" which is not and never was...
To continue reading
Request your trial