Berlinsky v. Eisenberg

Marbury, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellees, landlords of the appellant at 857 North Howard Street, Baltimore, Maryland, notified appellant to vacate the premises. On his failure to do so, they took proceedings to eject him in the People’s Court of Baltimore City. The case was heard and decided there in favor of the appellant, whereupon the landlords filed an appeal in the Baltimore City Court.

Upon a trial there, a judgment was entered for the appellees for restitution of the property, $200 damages and costs. The appellant attempts to appeal to this Court from that judgment. There is no appeal provided to this Court from the Baltimore City Court, where that court has acted in its appellate jurisdiction, in a case originating in the People’s Court. We can, however, examine the record in such a case, to determine whether the lower courts have jurisdiction.

Whether they have, or whether they have not, we have no authority to determine other questions before them. The only question before us on such an appeal is whether the Baltimore City Court or the People’s Court had jurisdiction. The subject was recently before this Court in the case of Lambros v. Brown, 184 Md. 350 , 41 A. 2d 78 , and is there fully discussed. The appellant does not dispute that the law is as we have stated it, but he contends that neither the People’s Court nor the Baltimore City Court had jurisdiction to hear this case.

He claims that the premises were leased to and used by him not only as an antique shop, but as a residence. The property was never registered with the Office of Price Control, and the appellant claims that it should have been registered because it was leased in part for dwelling purposes. Under the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, 50 U. S. C. A. Appendix, § 901 et seq., and the regulations made in pursuance thereof, and the Housing and Rent Act of 1947, 50 U. S. C. A. Appendix, § 1881 et seq. (in effect when the case was heard in the ⁶³⁹ Baltimore City Court), the landlord could not pursue his remedies under the local law until he had first gotten a certificate from the administrators of these Federal statutes, permitting him to do so.

The appellant contends that since the property was not registered, and since no certificate was gotten, there was no jurisdiction in the local courts. There is no question that under ordinary circumstances the People’s Court has jurisdiction over cases such as this in Baltimore City, and that the Baltimore City Court has a similar jurisdiction on appeal from the People’s Court. Since the Federal laws with respect to the rental of houses have been in force, they have been obeyed and enforced by the State courts, but whether their provisions have been complied with or not, or whether or not the premises in question come within the provisions requiring registration, and approval of the institution of ejectment proceedings, are questions which must be decided by a court having jurisdiction over the property, and the defendant. It is not a question