Bank of Baltimore v. Steele

Pattison, J., delivered the opinion of the Oourt. In this ease the appellant brought suit in the Baltimore Oity Oourt against the appellee, as endorser upon a prOmisr sory note given by William H. Baker to the appellant and endorsed by the appellee and others. The appellee having been summoned, appeared to the action in propria, persona and filed two pleas. ⁴⁸⁵ in the first lie alleged that at the time of the filing of the suit, he did not reside in. the City of Baltimore, but resided at, such time in Carroll County, and that no summons had been issued ag’ainst him and returned “non est” in Carroll County. In liis second plea, lie alleged that he did not reside in Baltimore City when the suit was instituted, nor did lie carry on any regular business, nor was be habitually engaged in any avocation or employment in said city, but that he resided. at the time of the issuing of the summons in the case, in Carroll County, where he still resides, and that no, summons had been issued against him and returned “non est” by the sheriff or coroner of Carroll County.

A demurrer was filed and sustained to the first plea, and the, second was traversed, and after successive pleadings, ¡sute- were joined and the case proceeded to trial before the court, sitting as a jury. The trial resulted in a judgment for defendant’s) costs, and from that judgment this appeal was taken. The defendant, in his micontradicted evidence, stated that at the time the suit was instituted he resided with his family in Carroll County, where he. had lived all his life and where he had been practicing1 his profession since his. admission to the bar at the age of twenty-one years. He further stated that, in 1915, he was appointed hv the President of the United States, Surveyor of Customs for the Thirteenth Custom District, which embraces Maryland and the District of Columbia, with headquarters in Baltimore City.

In Baltimore a room was assigned him in the Custom House, which he occupied, with his chief deputy, in the performance of his duty. Tlei or his subordinates were at times required M visit Annapolis, Ofisfield and Georgetown, and while at those places, the, office of the deputy stationed thereat. usually in the post office building1, was used by them. ⁴⁸⁶ The first month after his appointment, the1 appellee spent much of his time in Baltimore, organizing his force. After that, however, he went to the office in Baltimore two days in each week, generally on Wednesday and Saturday. The- rec'ords of the office were kept in the room or rooms assigned to and occupied hy him in the Custom House, and his mail, inmost part, was addressed to him there, although some of it went to his home in Carroll County.

His duties, as stated hy him, were to supervise what are known as “inspectors,” whose duty it is to hoard vessels when they come into- port, and to examine the cargoes to ascertain if they are free or dutiable, also to watch vessels at night to. prevent smuggling. The court, at the conclusion of the evidence, refused to grant either of the two- prayers offered hy the plaintiff. The first of these prayers asked the eonrt to say as a matter of law, that no- legally sufficient evidence had been offered to sustain the- plea and a verdict must he found for the plaintiff. By the second prayer, the co-urt was asked to say as a matter o-f law, that should it find the facts we have .stated, which were specifically set out in the prayer, them the defendant wiasi engaged in an avocation or employment within the-statute and the verdict on the issue must he- for the plaintiff.

The statute here invoked is sec. 147 of art. 75 of the Code, which provides that “any person who resides in one county, hut carries on any regular business or habitually engages in any avocation or employment in another county, may he sued in either county,” etc. This statute has been before this Court for construction a number o-f times: Chappell v. Lacy, 77 Md. 173 ; Gambrill v. Schooley, 95 Md. 260 ;