Pfeltz v. Pfeltz

• Decision Date: 29 July 1859
• Citation: 14 Md. 376
• Parties: JULIUS P. PFELTZ and Others v. SARAH PFELTZ and Others.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

14 Md. 376

JULIUS P. PFELTZ and Others v. SARAH PFELTZ and Others.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

July 29, 1859

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Baltimore City.

This appeal is from an order granting an injunction and appointing a receiver upon a bill filed on the 23rd of October 1857, by the appellees against the appellants.

The bill alleges that George C. Pfeltz, in his lifetime purchased from J. J. Speed, trustee, under a decree in chancery, a tract of land in Baltimore County, containing one hundred and twenty-one acres, more or less, described in a deed therefor from said Speed, as trustee, to said George, in fee-simple, dated the 26th of June 1847, which was duly recorded, and is filed as an exhibit with the bill; that after his purchase the said George entered into possession of the land, claiming title thereto under this purchase and deed, and continued in the peaceable possession thereof until April 1855, when he died, leaving the complainant, Sarah, his widow, and the other complainants, his children, all of whom are infants under the age of twenty-one years, and, also leaving a will, which is filed as an exhibit with the bill by which he devised this land to the complainant, Sarah during her widowhood, or until his youngest child should arrive at full age, she to receive the rents, issues, and profits thereof, and apply the same to the support, education and maintenance of herself and the testator's children, and should she marry, or when his youngest child shall attain the full age of twenty-one years, whichever shall first happen, then she is to sell the same and divide the proceeds, after payment of her dower interest therein, among his children, share and share alike; that, after the death of the said George, the complainants, claiming under this will, went into the peaceable and quiet possession of this land, and continued to receive the rents and profits thereof, and to apply the same to the purposes of the will, until on or about the month of May last, when the defendant, Julius P. Pfeltz, unlawfully, violently, and contrary to equity and good conscience, entered upon and into the possession of said premises, and has since continued to hold the same unlawfully and against equity and good conscience, to the great and manifest wrong and injury of the complainants, withholding from them any use or benefit of said premises, whereby they are, in great measure, deprived of their proper legal and equitable support and maintenance of and from the rents and profits of said land, he, the said Julius P. Pfeltz, not denying some right and title of the said George, but sometimes pretending and giving out in speeches that the right and title of said George was only equitable and not legal, and feigning and pretending some alleged forfeiture thereof, and pretending that his children, the other defendants, are entitled to said land, because of such alleged forfeiture, and that the legal estate is outstanding, in a certain Job Smith, in trust for their use under some pretended deed,, and, at other times, pretending some other excuse for his said violent, unlawful and inequitable conduct in the premises, all of which pretenses and excuses the complainants aver are false and without foundation in law or equity. The bill also charges that the said Julius P. Pfeltz is utterly insolvent, and then prays that he may be compelled, by decree, to surrender and yield up said land to the complainants, as in their former estate, and to account with them for the rents and profits thereof whilst so held by him, and pay over the same to the complainants for their own use and benefit, according to the terms of said will, and that the title of the complainants may be declared and quieted, and that, pendente lite, a receiver may be appointed of said rents and profits, and that said Julius P. Pfeltz may be enjoined and compelled to surrender up the premises to the receiver, when appointed, and for general relief.

On the same day that the bill was filed, the court (Krebs, J.) passed an order appointing a receiver, and granting an injunction as prayed, from which, after answer filed, the defendants appealed.

The cause was argued before ECCLESTON, TUCK and BARTOL, JJ. Chas. F. Mayer and Coleman Yellott for the appellants.

1st. The bill asserts a legal fee-simple title in the appellees and an unlawful and violent entry by the appellant, Julius P. Pfeltz. It does not charge that he is doing irreparable waste. Under such a state of facts the appellees can have full and adequate relief without resorting to a court of equity, 1st, by proceedings under the statutes for forcible entry and detainer. Proprietary v. Brown, 1 H. & McH. 428. Isaac v. Clarke, 9 G. & J. 107. 2 Harr. Ent. 59, 66. Statutes 5 Richard II. ch. 8. 15 Richard II. ch. 2. 8 Henry VI. ch. 9, and Acts of 1816, ch. 187, and 1832, ch. 121; 2nd, by action of ejectment; 3rd, by action of trespass quare clausum fregit.

2nd. The appellees, having adequate remedy at law, could not ask relief in a court of equity. Story's Eq. Pl. secs. 473, 490. Drury v. Conner, 1 H. & G. 220. Methodist Church v. Baltimore, 6 Gill 391. Brumbaugh v. Schnebly, 2 Md. 320. Clayton v. Carey, 4 Md. 26. Berrett v. Oliver, 7 G. & J. 191.

3rd. This proceeding is virtually an ejectment bill, which is not allowed by courts of equity. Story's Eq. Pl. sec. 476.

4th. The case made by the bill did not authorize the appointment of a receiver, or the issuing of an injunction. Herr v Bierbower, 3 Md.Ch. 456. Carlisle v. Stevenson, Ib. 503. Ches. & Ohio Canal Co. v. Young, 3 Md. 480. In the case last cited, at page 490, this court denies the doctrine that, because a party asserts only an equitable title, and cannot succeed at law, a court of equity gains jurisdiction and may exercise it in the manner here claimed. It might be shown from the will of George C. Pfeltz, the exhibited source of the appellees' title, that a legal title is in the widow for protecting all rights of herself and her infant children, but that ascertainment is not at all necessary. A bill in equity cannot be made to serve for an ejectment or for a writ of forcible entry, or for an action of trespass. Story's Eq. Pl. sec. 476. The cases cited under the appellees' second point are far from establishing the doctrine indispensable for their bill, that because an infant asserts the right to land, and is excluded by another from possession, the person in possession must be deemed guardian,...