Shapiro v. Board of County Com'rs for Prince George's County

• Decision Date: 17 March 1959
• Docket Number: No. 160,160
• Citation: 219 Md. 298,149 A.2d 396
• Parties: Meyer SHAPIRO et al. v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY et al.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 298

219 Md. 298

149 A.2d 396

Meyer SHAPIRO et al. v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY et al.

No. 160.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

March 17, 1959.

William E. Brooke, District Heights (Shriver & Brooke, District Heights, on the brief), for appellants.

Thomas E. Jones, Upper Marlboro, Robert B. Mathias, Mt. Rainier, Robert A. Diemer, District Heights (William L. Kahler, Hyattsville, and Charles M. Irelan, Rockville, on the brief), for appellees.

Before HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ., and THOMAS J. KEATING, Jr., J., specially assigned.

PRESCOTT, Judge.

The appellees filed a motion to dismiss the present appeal 'since Rule 828 b 1(b) * * * has not been met * *.' They complain that a deed filed as an exhibit with the bill of complaint was not included in the record extract. We think the record, as presented, is sufficient for a determination of the questions involved in the appeal; consequently, the motion to dismiss is overruled.

The court below sustained a demurrer to and dismissed the plaintiff's bill of complaint which prayed for declaratory relief. The bill alleges, in substance, that the plaintiffs are the sole owners of a certain tract of land, some of which lies to the south and some to the north of a strip of land, running generally east and west, that is designated, on a plat of the northern portion of said tract recorded in 1893, as 'Landover Street.' The southern portion of the tract does not seem to be subdivided. The bill further alleges that the offer of dedication of Landover Street ¹ by the recording of the plat has never been accepted by the officials of Prince George's County, and it has never been improved or developed in any manner. It states that the plaintiffs and their predecessors in title have revoked any offer to dedicate said street to public use, and the plaintiffs are informed and believe that the defendants are claiming an interest therein adverse to the interest of the plaintiffs. It then prays that the court determine and declare the relative rights of the parties and for general relief.

In actions for declaratory judgments or decrees, as in actions generally, a demurrer admits all of the alleged facts that are well pleaded. 1 Anderson, Declaratory Judgments, Section 318.

In reading the chancellor's opinion, it is not easy to pin-point his exact reasons for dismissing the bill of complaint; and, likewise, an examination of the appellees' brief fails to disclose, with certainty and clarity, just what their contentions are. However, they seem to rely on: (a) a claim that the plaintiffs failed to allege title or possession to the land in question; and (b) that appellants are estopped to deny the dedication of the land involved.

(a)

The appellees claim that the land in dispute is designated as a street upon a recorded plat, and, consequently, the plaintiffs fail to show either title or possession, which are necessary ingredients in any bill quia timet or to remove a cloud from title. They cite the cases of Polk v. Pendleton, 31 Md. 118, Rosenthal v. Donnelly, 126 Md. 147, 94 A. 1030, and Carswell v. Swindell, 102 Md. 636, 62 A. 956, all of which held that title and possession in the plaintiffs were necessary in order to maintain suits to quiet title. However, they were all decided before Code (1957) Article 16, Section 128. This section provides, inter alia, that any person, being in actual peaceable possession of land or in the event the land be vacant and unoccupied, in constructive and peaceable possession under color of title, when his title thereto or any part thereof is disputed or denied or when any other person claims to own any interest therein, may maintain a suit in equity to quiet or remove such cloud from said title or determine such adverse claim.

The plaintiffs' theory is that they own the property in dispute [a portion of the land designated as Landover Street on the plat] by reason of their deed, whereby they obtained all of the land on both sides of said designated street, and Code (1957) Article 21, Section 107, which states that a conveyance of land which binds upon a street carries all of the rights of the grantor to the center of the street, in the absence of a specific reservation; unless there has been an offer of dedication thereof and an acceptance of the offer, and they deny the acceptance. Without, of course, attempting to pass upon the merits of the controversy, we think the plaintiffs' statements in their bill of complaint were sufficient to show a justiciable issue or controversy. The real matter in controversy or the subject of the dispute raised in the bill is the acceptance, vel non, of the offer of dedication made when the plat was placed of record. The mere filing of the plat in 1893 did not effectuate a complete dedication, but constituted an offer to dedicate which had to be...