Waters v. Snouffer

• Decision Date: 16 November 1898
• Citation: Waters v. Snouffer, 88 Md. 391, 41 A. 785 (Md. 1898)
• Parties: WATERS v. SNOUFFER.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

41 A. 785

88 Md. 391

WATERS v. SNOUFFER.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

November 16, 1898

Appeal from circuit court, Montgomery county; John A. Lynch and James B. Henderson, Judges.

Action by Margaret J. Waters, by next friend, George T. Waters against George Fenton Snouffer.From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.Reversed.

Argued before MCSHERRY, C.J., and BRYAN, FOWLER, ROBERTS, PAGEBOYD, and PEARCE, JJ.

Thomas Anderson and W.Viers Bouic, for appellant.Ed. C. Peters and Jas. A. Henderson, for appellee.

FOWLER J.

This is an action of trespass quare clausum fregit.The defendant claims a private right of way over the plaintiff's land and his defense rests upon the validiy of this claim, which in turn, rests upon the alleged exclusive, adverse, and uninterrupted uses of said way for the period of 20 years or longer by the defendant and those under whom he claims.The verdict was in favor of the defendant, and this is the plaintiff's appeal.

Three exceptions appear upon the record, but no serious contemplation was made except in reference to the third, which is based upon the rulings on the prayers.The first exception was abandoned.

The defendant's counsel, upon cross-examination, asked the witness George T. Waters if it was nearer in going from defendant's farm to Laytonsville, to use the Merriweather road or the road in controversy, to which question the plaintiff objected, and, his objection being overruled, the witness stated it was several hundred yards nearer to use the road in controversy.This ruling of the court constitutes the second exception.In his examination in chief the witness had given certain testimony tending to show the relative convenience of certain other roads in getting to and from neighboring villages, and, it seems to us, it was competent on cross-examination to ask the witness if it was not more convenient or nearer to go by the road in question to one of the places named than to go there by one of the other roads.But, whether the testimony was in or out, it would seem quite immaterial; nor do we see how its admission could in any way injuriously affect the plaintiff's case.

The third exception was taken to the rejection of the plaintiff's third, and the granting of the defendant's first and second, prayers.There was no serious contention that there was any error in the rejection of plaintiff's third prayer, by which the court was asked to...