Williams v. Moore

• Decision Date: 23 December 1957
• Docket Number: No. 101,101
• Citation: 215 Md. 181,137 A.2d 193
• Parties: Richard WILLIAMS, Jr., et al. v. Howard Nelson MOORE et al.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 181

215 Md. 181

137 A.2d 193

Richard WILLIAMS, Jr., et al. v. Howard Nelson MOORE et al.

No. 101.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Dec. 23, 1957.

Jack H. Williams and Severn E. Lanier, Baltimore, for appellants.

Paul J. Wilkinson, Baltimore (Philip B. Smith, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellees.

Before BRUNE, Chief Judge, and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.

PRESCOTT, Judge.

This is an appeal from a declaratory decree of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, sitting in equity, dated April 10, 1957, declaring a 20 foot private road extending from the property of the appellees, Howard Nelson Moore and wife, along and, as to one-half its width, over the property of the appellants, Richard Williams, Jr., John Smylie Morrel and their wives, to be subject to use in common by all parties to the suit, their heirs and assigns, for the benefit of any and all properties now or formerly owned by said parties within the outlines of the original tract of land, for the benefit of which properties the road was originally laid out and used; and that the appellees have the right to use, for ingress and egress, the 20 foot private road, with the right to grant to any purchasers of the land within the original tract the use in common of the road. The decree also defines the 'original tract of land' and dismisses a cross-bill of complaint filed by the appellants.

NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE

[Note: The date appearing on Parcel A is incorrect and the name Saddler refers to John T. Sadler, Jr.]

The whole property within the outlines of the above exhibit was formerly owned by a party named Gamble. In 1947, parcel A was transferred by deed from Gamble, and wife, to Richard Williams, Jr., and wife, two of the appellants. This deed called for the property to bind along the center of the 20 foot private road leading from Circle Road and outlined on the drawing above, with the use thereof in common. Later in 1947, Gamble, and wife, conveyed the parcel containing 4.096 acres and marked 'Onnen' to Howard Nelson Moore, and wife, the appellees; and on June 15, 1948, they conveyed, to the same grantees, parcels B, C, D and X. Both of said deeds provided that the 20 foot private road should be used in common. On the same day of the latter conveyance, June 15, 1948, the Moores conveyed parcel B to John Smylie Morrel, and wife, the other appellants, with the right to use the private road in common. In 1953, the Moores conveyed parcel C to Thomas R. Patton, Jr., and wife, who owned additional property to the south of parcel C; and the Pattons, shortly thereafter, conveyed parcel C and their other property to the south to John T. Sadler, Jr., and wife, both deeds providing for use in common of the said private road. In 1954, the Moores conveyed parcel D to parties by the name of Root; and the parcels marked 'Onnen' and X to Ferdinand H. Onnen, and wife, both conveyances having a like provision concerning the road. The Sadlers, the Morrels and the Williamses executed a written agreement in 1955, whereby the Morrels and the Williamses granted the Sadlers the right to use the road in common for a consideration of $2,000. Also in 1955, parcel X was reconveyed by the Onnens to the Moores. All of the above conveyances that were included in the appendix contained words of inheritance. On June 12, 1956, the Moores executed a contract of sale of parcel X to Richard J. Oetking, and wife. The Morrels and Williamses, the present owners of parcels A and B, disputed, and still dispute, the right of any future grantee of parcel X to use the road in question. While the record is not entirely clear concerning the same, it appears that Robert Richardson, and wife, are the present owners of parcel D.

The Moores filed suit against the Morrels and the Williamses praying a declaration that the private road is subject to be used in common by the appellants and appellees and their heirs and assigns, in favor of any and all properties, now or formerly owned by the said parties; and that the appellees have the full and complete right to use said road as it extends along and over the properties of the appellants, in common with them and others entitled thereto, and the full right to grant, unto any purchasers of properties within the outlines of the original tract of land, the use of said road in common with others entitled to its use. The appellants demurred to this bill of complaint, principally on the ground that there was a non-joinder of necessary parties. This demurrer was overruled, testimony was taken and the above mentioned decree entered.

Section 11 of Art. 31A (Code 1951) in part, states: 'When declaratory relief is sought all persons shall be made parties who have or claim any interest which would be affected by the declaration, * * *.' This provision has been interpreted by this and other Courts on many occasions. It may be stated as a general rule that ordinarily, in an action for a declaratory judgment, all persons interested in the declaration are necessary parties. Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Hamera, 162 Misc. 169, 292 N.Y.S. 811; Franklin Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 10 Cir., 157 F.2d 653. It has been held...