Randle v. Sutton
Decision Date | 22 June 1875 |
Citation | 43 Md. 64 |
Parties | WILLIAM T. RANDLE v. SAMUEL SUTTON. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Baltimore County.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
The cause was argued before BARTOL, C.J., STEWART, BRENT, GRASON and ROBINSON, J.
John T. B. Dorsey, for the appellant.
A lease in the common, though improper use of the term, is an interest or estate in lands. Coke Litt., 42, 45; Taylor on Landlord and Tenant, 14. And so, if any dispute arises between a landlord and tenant as to the holding or the title to that estate, the justice of the peace has no jurisdiction in the case. Code, Art. 51 sec. 14.
To make a valid lease, the lessor must have possession of the lands demised. Taylor's Landlord and Tenant, 84-5 Bacon's Abr. Lease, (I,) 4; Lee vs. Norris, Cro. Eliz., 331; Thurston's Case, Owen R., 16, 1 Rep., a, (147 a.)
In an action of debt on pleas of non demisit and non tenuit, the payment of rent by mistake or misrepresentation, may be shown to rebut the presumption of a tenancy, and such payment is no evidence of the existence of the relation of landlord and tenant. Rogers vs. Pitcher, 6 Taun., 202.
This appeal will lie. Hall vs. State, 12 G. & J., 329; Herzberg vs. Adams, 39 Md., 309.
John I. Yellott, for the appellee.
This appeal should be dismissed, inasmuch as the Circuit Court for Baltimore County was in the exercise of an appellate jurisdiction in the trial of the cause, and its judgment was final. The justice had jurisdiction, and the appellate Court had full jurisdiction, and where such is the fact no appeal lies from the judgment of the appellate Court in the trial of an appeal from a justice. Mears vs. Remare, 33 Md., 250; Herzberg vs. Adams, 39 Md., 309; Webster, et al. vs. Cockey, 9 Gill, 92; State vs. Bogue, 5 Md., 352.
The Code, Art. 51, sec. 14, provides that a justice of the peace shall have no jurisdiction when the title to land is involved, but is silent as to how he is to ascertain whether the title to land is involved in a case before him. Section 33 of the same Article enumerates certain cases in which the mere ex parte affidavit of a party shall be accepted by the justice as conclusive evidence of the fact that the title to land is involved. In all cases not specified in Section 33, Art. 51, of the Code, the fact must be judicially ascertained in the same manner as other facts in the case. The justice has jurisdiction to determine whether the title to land is involved in a case, and if he decides it is not, the party aggrieved has the right to appeal, and the appellate Court has jurisdiction to dispose of the case finally. This was not an action for cutting wood from real estate, or for a trespass upon the same, and therefore neither the justice nor the appellate Court was required to dismiss the case upon the mere filing of an affidavit.
The relation of landlord and tenant, or at least that of licensor and licensee, existed between the parties to this cause at the time of suit brought; the lease of 1865 had never been revoked; there was no pretence that the premises had ever been surrendered by the lessee to the lessor; no claim that the lessee, Randle, had been evicted or required to pay rent to any other landlord. Such being the state of facts, the appellant was estopped from denying the appellee's title. Bigelow on Estoppel, 374-6-7, 383-4-5 and 412; Knight vs. Smythe, 4 Maule & S., 347; Glynn vs. George, 20 N. H, 114.
The proceedings in this case originated before a justice of the peace, and were instituted by the appellee against the appellant, for the purpose of recovering the sum of thirteen dollars, upon an account filed with the proceedings. Judgment being rendered by the justice, in favor of the plaintiff for $13 and $2.10 costs, the defendant appealed to the Circuit Court, where the judgment was affirmed; whereupon the defendant appealed to this Court. It is well settled that unless the Circuit Court was without jurisdiction, its decision was final; and the only ground upon which the appeal can be entertained, is that the Circuit Court had not jurisdiction to render the judgment. Hall vs. The State, 12 G. & J., 329; Webster vs. Cockey, 9 Gill, 92; State vs. Bogue, 5 Md., 352; Mears vs. Remare, 33 Md., 246; Herzberg vs. Adams, 39 Md., 309.
The case, as it appeared before the justice of the peace, was an ordinary proceeding for the collection of a small debt, his jurisdiction was therefore very plain, there is nothing to show that it was called in question, though the appellant's counsel have stated in argument that objection to the jurisdiction was made before the justice.
The account is "for ground-rent for loading iron-ore on sideling at 50 cents per car,"--and states the dates and the numbers of the cars.
In the Circuit Court on the appeal, the defendant filed the following paper.
"The defendant and appellant alleges that the title to land is involved in this cause, that the said Samuel Sutton, if he ever had any title to the land upon which rent is alleged to have accrued in this case, has been disseized by the President and Directors of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company many years ago, that a part of said land is the bed of an old county road, as the defendant is informed, and the major part thereof has been occupied by the said Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, as part and parcel of the depot franchises of said road." This paper was signed by counsel and sworn to by the defendant.
It is contended that this affidavit is sufficient to show that the case was not one within the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stenberg v. State ex rel. Keller
... ... constitution. ( Smith v. Kaiser, 17 Neb. 184; ... Radley v. O'Leary, 36 Minn. 173; Readle v ... Sutton, 43 Md. 64; Nicholson v. Walker, 4 Ill ... App., 404; Potts v. Magnes, 17 Colo. 364; ... Fulton v. Hanlow, 20 Cal. 487; King v ... ...
-
Lambros v. Brown
...we cannot review that action on these appeals. Here, we have before us, on appeals such as these, only jurisdictional questions. Randle v. Sutton, 43 Md. 64; Shippler v. Broom, 62 Md. 318, 319. We cannot, these cases, pass upon the use or abuse of the discretion of the Baltimore City Court,......
-
Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Herrmann
... ... an appeal may be taken to reverse the judgment unwarrantably ... rendered. Hough v. Kelsey, 19 Md. 451; Mears v ... Remare, 33 Md. 246; Randle v. Sutton, 43 Md ... 64; Cole v. Hynes, 46 Md. 181; Rayner v ... State, 52 Md. 368, 374; Matthews v. Whiteford, ... 119 Md. 122, 85 A. 1040; ... ...
-
Baltimore & O.R. Co. v. Owens
...oust and defeat the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace, and of the circuit court on appeal from the justice of the peace. In Randle v. Sutton, 43 Md. 64, it is "The statement by the defendant that the title to land is involved, is not conclusive, and cannot govern or control the actio......