B. O.R.R. Co. v. Owens

This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Prince George's County overruling a motion to quash the proceedings in a magistrate's appeal case, and from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant for the sum of one hundred dollars. The record presents a single question and that relates to the jurisdiction of Justices of the Peace in civil cases under Article 52, § 7, Code of Public General Laws of the State. The motions to dismiss the appeal and to quash the proceedings in the Court below were based upon the ground that neither the Justice of the Peace nor the Circuit Court for Prince George's County at the trial had jurisdiction, because the suit was one where the title to land was involved, and therefore they were without jurisdiction to hear and determine the case. Section 7 of Article 52 of the Code reads as follows: "But no justice of the peace shall have any jurisdiction in actions where the title to land is involved, nor in actions for slander, for breach of promise to marry or to enforce any lien for work done or materials furnished." This section (7) of the Code has repeatedly been before this Court for construction and it has been distinctly held that in such cases it must appear to the Court from the nature of the action itself that it is one in which the title to land is necessarily and directly in issue in order to oust and defeat the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace, and of the Circuit Court on appeal from the justice of the peace.

In Randle v. Sutton, 43 Md. 64 , it is said: "The statement by the defendant that the title to land is involved is *Page 680 not conclusive and can not govern or control the action of the Court or determine its jurisdiction. It must appear to the Court from the nature of the action itself, that it was one in which the title to land is necessarily and directly in issue between the parties." Cole v. Hynes, 46 Md. 181 ; Dietrich v. Swartz, 41 Md. 196 ; Shippler v. Broom, 62 Md. 318 . These earlier cases are considered and reviewed in a number of more recent decisions and the construction of the statute as announced by them has been approved and adopted by this Court, as the law applicable in similar cases. Legum v. Blank, 105 Md. 128 ; Josselson v. Sonneborn, 110 Md. 548 ; Whittington v. Hall, 116 Md. 468 ; Wilmer v. Mitchell, 122 Md. 300 .

It appears from the docket entries in the case that on the 10th of December, 1914, the appellee obtained a judgment against the appellant company before Wm. J. Neale, a justice of the peace of the State of Maryland, in and for Prince George's County, for the sum of one hundred dollars and costs. The defendant was summoned to answer an action on the case for $100 damages at the suit of the plaintiff and the cause of action and the particulars of the plaintiff's claim for damages are based upon an alleged improper and negligent construction and operation of the defendant's trains on its tracks at and near the plaintiff's residence, in Riverdale, Prince George's County, to the injury and damage of the plaintiff. The bill of particulars, filed with the justice of the peace and set out in the record, alleges in part the plaintiff's claim for damages as follows: "That the freight trains on the track are there mostly at night, and throughout the night, and they recklessly and negligently are operated by the defendant's employees and because of such emit a great quantity of steam, soot, smoke, ashes and cinders, all four of the latter being wafted over