Southern Md. Agr. Ass'n v. Meyer

• Decision Date: 19 July 1950
• Docket Number: No. 200,200
• Parties: SOUTHERN MARYLAND AGRICULTURAL ASS'N v. MEYER et al.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 31

196 Md. 31

75 A.2d 89

SOUTHERN MARYLAND AGRICULTURAL ASS'N v. MEYER et al.

No. 200.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

July 19, 1950.

Hyman Ginsberg, Baltimore (Ginsberg and Ginsberg, John W. Farrell and John S. Conroy, all of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.

M. Hampton Magruder, Upper Marlboro, and Ralph W. Powers, Hyattsville, for appellees.

Before MARBURY, C. J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, GRASON, and HENDERSON, JJ.

HENDERSON, Judge.

This appeal is from a decree of the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, in equity, enjoining interference with the use of a certain roadway over the land of the appellant, and requiring the appellant to remove obstructions and restore a bridge. The questions presented are whether the appellees acquired an easement by prescripion or dedication, and whether there was jurisdiction in equity to decide the disputed question of title.

We find no merit in the contention as to jurisdiction. The authorities were discussed in the recent case of Potomac Edison Co. v. Routzahn, Md., 65 A.2d 580, 583, where it was said that the rule requiring resort to an action at law is not inflexible, and that factors such as the possibility of irreparable damage, the lack of reasonable doubt as to the title, and the need for mandatory injunction to afford complete relief, may be taken into account. Cf. Smith v. Shiebeck, 180 Md. 412, 24 A.2d 795.

In the instant case there was abundant proof of continuous user for the statutory period. In 1908 Jacob Meyer, the father of four of the appellees, and some of his neighbors began fording the Patuxent River, by team and on horseback, and crossing the land now owned by the appellant to a county road known as the Bowie Road, and thence to the town of Bowie, where they transacted business, purchased supplies and attended church. In 1919 several of the appellees constructed a bridge over the river and continued to use the road, which had a gravel surface and was generally kept in repair by the appellees, although some surfacing was done by the appellant. In 1926, the appellant erected a new grandstand, which involved a relocation of a portion of the road, but the appellees continued to use it without interruption until May 13, 1949, when barricades were erected. No permission was ever sought from or given by the appellant.

While the appellees could reach Bowie by another road, this alternate route was about three times as long. It was shown that while some of the appellees had, at one time or another, been employed at the track, others had never been so employed.

The chief contention of the appellant is that the adverse character of the user was not established, and that it was in fact permissive, because of the maintenance by the appellant of one or more sliding gates which it maintained on the roadway. But the evidence shows that these gates were never locked and were kept open altogether except during the race meetings held during a period of about twenty-five days a year. Even during racemeetings the appellees' use was not forbidden, but the closing of the gates and the posting of a watchman was designed to control the flow of traffic coming to the races. At one time the appellant erected a sign 'Road closed--Bridge out of repair,' but the chancellor found that this was designed to avoid possible liability to persons injured on the...