Benton v. Stokes

Schmucker, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County which affirmed upon appeal the decision of a Justice of the Peace awarding restitution of certain demised premises to the appellee as landlord. The proceeding before the Justice had been taken, by the appellee against the appellant as her tenant, under the provisions of Article 53 of the Code relating to tenants holding over. , At the trial of the case in the Circuit Court the appellant-moved to quash the proceedings for want of jurisdiction in the Justice of the Peace to entertain them but the Court overruled the motion and affirmed the judgment. The appel ¹¹⁹ lant then appealed from the order overruling the motion to quash and from the judgment of affirmance. •' The vital question presented for our determination by the record is whether the justice had jurisdiction of the proceed; ing instituted before him for if he had it is settled by numerous decisions of this Court that no appeal lies to us from the action of the Circuit Court upon the appeal from the justice to that tribunal.

Cole v. Hynes, 46 Md. 184 ; Herzberg v . Adams, 39 Md. 312 ; Mears v. Remare, 33 Md. 250 ; Darrell v. Biscoe, 94 Md. 684 ; Hopkins v. P. W. & B. R. R. Co., 94 Md. 257 ; Roth v. State, 89 Md. 524 . The material facts appearing from the record are as follows : On July 12th, 1906, a written lease under seal for the demised premises, consisting of an improved lot of land in Hyattsville, was made between the parties to this appeal for the term of one year, to begin on July 30th, 1906, at the rent therein stipulated payable in monthly instalments, with a provision that the lease was to continue in force from term to term with the right to either party to terminate it at the end of any term “by giving at least sixty days previous notice thereof in writing.” This lease recited on its face that it was made “between Rogers & Earden, Agents for Kellie E. Stokes, landlord, and Wm. H. Benton, tenant.” On May 20th, 1907, Rogers & Earden, as agents of the appellee served on the appellant a notice to quit the premises at the end of the year on July 30th midnight.

This notice was in the usual form and was signed “Rogers & Farden, Agents for Kellie E. Stokes.” On September 19th, 1907, the appellant filed with Arthur Carr, a Justice of the Peace for Prince George’s County, her petition alleging her ownership of the demised premises, their occupancy by the appellant as her tenant for a term which expired at midnight on July 31st, 1907, the service upon him of the notice to qtxit and his refusal to give up the premises. The petition concluded with a prayer for a summonns against the appellant requiring him to1 show cause why restitution of ¹²⁰ the premises should net be made to the petitioner. This petition although in the name of the appellee, “Nellie E. Stokes,” was not signed by her but by “James O. Rogers, attorney for Nellie E. Stokes.” Upon the filing of the petition summons was issued as. prayed for against the appellant and he, failing to appear in response thereto, the. case was adjourned fo'r one week and then after “trial had” before the justice, the, judgment for the restitution was rendered, from which the appeal to the Circuit Court was taken. •. No objection is made by the appellant to the contents of the notice to quit or the petition to the justice. ■ The two grounds, stated by him in his motion to quash the proceedings in the Circuit Court and relied on in his brief in this Court, for denying the jurisdiction .of ..the Justice of the Peace to entertain the appellee’s petition, are that neither the notice to. quit nor the petition to the.

Justice were signed by the appellee herself and that therefore they failed to so comply with the provisions of Article 53 of the Code as to give the Justice jurisdiction. . . We. do not regard either one of these grounds of objection as-sound. Section 1 of Article 53 of the Code provides both for’ giving the notice to quit and filing the petition to the Justice of-the Peace. It’s language is: “In all cases whei’e any interest in real estate shall be let or leased for any definite term or at will and the lessor, his heirs, executors, administrators or assigns shall desire to repossess the same after the expiration of the term for which it was demised and shall give notice in writing one month before the expiration of said term or determination, of said will, to the tenant or the person actually in possession of the premises to remove from-the same at the