Textor v. Shipley
| Decision Date | 20 June 1893 |
| Citation | 26 A. 1019,77 Md. 473 |
| Parties | TEXTOR v. SHIPLEY. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from circuit court of Baltimore city.
Bill by Anton Textor against Charles Shipley to quiet title to realty. Defendant had a decree, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before ALVEY, C.J., and ROBINSON, BRYAN, McSHERRY, FOWLER ROBERTS, and BRISCOE, JJ.
C. D McFarland, for appellant.
Thos G. Hayes and Thos. R. Clendinen, for appellee.
The appellant was the owner of the reversion in the lot of ground now in controversy, and one Charles H. Black was the owner of the leasehold interest. The city taxes for the years 1885 and 1886 being in arrear, the fee in the property was sold at public auction for the payment of these taxes, and was bought by Lewis N. Hopkins, collector of city taxes. The sale was duly reported to the circuit court for Baltimore city, and was finally ratified. On the 11th September, 1889, Hopkins as collector, in pursuance of the ordinances of the mayor and city council, conveyed the fee to the mayor and city council of Baltimore, and on the 28th December, 1889, the property was sold by the latter, at public auction, to Charles H. Shipley, and by Shipley it was leased for 99 years to Elizabeth Black. On the 13th April, 1891,--more than three years after the property had been sold for taxes,--this bill was filed by the appellant for the purpose of removing the cloud cast on his title by the tax sale and conveyances to which we have referred. The appellant alleges that he is the owner of the reversion, and that Charles H. Black was the assignee of the leasehold interest; that the property had been sold for taxes,--but charges that the proceedings under which it was sold were irregular and defective; that it was the duty of Black, the tenant, to pay the taxes; nevertheless, contrary to his duty in the premises, he entered into an unlawful arrangement with Shipley, by which the latter purchased the property, and executed a lease of the same to Elizabeth Black, wife of Charles H. Black, the assignee of the leasehold. The appellant prays that the deeds from Hopkins, city collector, to the mayor and city council, and from the latter to Shipley, and the lease from Shipley and wife to Elizabeth Black, be declared void, and for other relief, etc.
The demurrer to the bill was sustained by the court below, and we think properly sustained, because it did not allege that the appellant was in possession of the property at the time the bill was filed. The object of a bill to remove a cloud upon title, or to quiet the possession of real estate, is to protect the owner of the legal title from being disturbed in his possession,--from being harassed by suits in regard to his title by persons setting up unjust and illegal pretensions; and it may be said, as a general rule, that the bill cannot be maintained without clear proof of both possession and legal title in the plaintiff. Polk v Pendleton, 31 Md. 118. In such cases, one being in possession, he cannot have a remedy at law, and is obliged, therefore, to seek the aid of a court of equity. If, however, the possession is in another person, his remedy is by an action of ejectment, and there is no ground for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial