Textor v. Shipley

• Decision Date: 15 March 1894
• Citation: 28 A. 1060,77 Md. 473
• Parties: TEXTOR v. SHIPLEY.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

28 A. 1060

77 Md. 473

TEXTOR v. SHIPLEY.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

March 15, 1894

Motion for rehearing. Overruled.

For prior report, see 26 A. 1019.

ROBINSON C.J.

Steuart v. Meyer, 54 Md. 454, relied on in support of the motion for reargument, cannot be said to be in conflict with the principles on which this case was decided. In that case Steuart, as trustee of his daughter, became the owner of a ground rent, the leasehold of which belonged to Mary Haschert. The fee simple was subsequently sold for city taxes, and the sale was duly ratified by the circuit court of Baltimore City. Steuart, upon applying for the installment of ground rent due in October, 1876, learned for the first time that the property had been sold for taxes, and thereupon he filed a petition alleging that the sale was void for want of jurisdiction, and praying for leave to file a bill of review for the purpose of having the matters re-examined, and the order of ratification annulled and set aside. Leave being granted to file a bill of review, Meyer, the purchaser appealed from the order, and Steuart then appealed from the final order of ratification. Pending these appeals, receivers were appointed to take possession of the property and to collect the accruing rents. Both of the appeals were dismissed. 48 Md. 423. When the cause was remanded, the court rescinded the order granting leave to file a bill of review and dismissed the petition of Steuart; and from this order he appealed. Pending this appeal, Steuart filed an original bill, alleging that the proceedings in the tax sale were irregular and void, and that the purchaser acquired no title thereunder, and prayed that the alleged tax sale be declared null and void, and that Meyer, the purchaser, be enjoined from taking possession of or setting up any title thereto and that the receivers be enjoined from delivering possession to him. In invoking the jurisdiction of the court of equity under the circumstances, the complainants allege that they have no adequate remedy at law; that they could not resort to the ordinary remedy by ejectment against Meyer as a disseisor, for the reason that he was not in possession of the property, but the same is still in the possession of the receivers; and that, the complainants being owners of the reversion, they had no present right to the possession. It was in view of these facts that the court said, referring to the complainants: "They...