Shippler v. Broom

• Decision Date: 18 June 1884
• Parties: MICHAEL SHIPPLER v. CHARLES D. BROOM.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

62 Md. 318

MICHAEL SHIPPLER v. CHARLES D. BROOM.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

June 18, 1884

APPEAL from the Baltimore City Court.

This was a proceeding instituted before a justice of the peace under the provisions of the Act of 1882, ch. 355, by the appellee, to obtain possession of certain premises in the City of Baltimore, from the appellant, as tenant holding over after the expiration of his term. The justice rendered judgment of non pros for want of jurisdiction, and awarded costs to the defendant. The plaintiff appealed to the Baltimore City Court, before whom the case was tried without a jury, and the judgment of the justice was reversed, and judgment given in favor of the plaintiff for possession of the premises, and $108.63, damages, and costs. From this judgment the present appeal was taken.

The cause was argued before MILLER, YELLOTT, ROBINSON, IRVING RITCHIE, and BRYAN, J.

John B. Wentz, for the appellant.

Benjamin Kurtz, for the appellee.

YELLOTT J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

The controversy between the parties to this cause had its inception in proceedings taken by the appellee, in conformity with the provisions of the Act of 1882, ch. 355, to obtain possession of certain real estate, in the City of Baltimore, from the appellant who, he alleged, was his tenant holding over after the expiration of his term. In the record appear the notice, affidavit of service, and summons issued by a justice of the peace, and there is also a judgment of non pros. for want of jurisdiction. The questions in controversy were then carried by appeal into the Baltimore City Court, and the judgment of the justice was, by that Court, reversed. The pending appeal has been taken from the judgment of the Baltimore City Court.

The only ground on which an exercise of the revisory powers of this Court can be successfully invoked, in a case where the judgment was rendered by an appellate tribunal, reviewing the decision of a justice of the peace, is the want of jurisdiction to consider and determine the questions involved in litigation. The principle is too well settled to be controverted, that in an appeal from the decision of a justice of the peace the judgment of the appellate Court is a finality, unless such Court transcends the limits of its jurisdiction.

The appellant relies on the provision of the Code contained in Art. 51, sec. 14, that "no justice of the peace shall have any jurisdiction in actions where the title to lands is involved, nor in actions for slander, for breach of promise to...