Cone v. East Baltimore Permanent Land & Building Society

Bartol, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The original petition in this case was filed on the 12th day of July, 1812, in the names of John Coburn, Wm. ³⁸⁵ Geo. Read and Joseph M. Cone. Afterwards, on the 21st September, 1812, Wm, Geo.

Read, by an order addressed to the clerk, and filed in the case, directed that the same should he dismissed so far as it concerned himself, stating that his name had been used therein, without his knowledge and consent. Upon final hearing the Circuit Court for Baltimore County refused to grant relief, and dismissed the petition of Coburn and Cone who have appealed. There is one ground of defence taken by the appellees, which seems to us to he conclusive; which precludes us from considering the merits of the case, and compels us to affirm the decree of the Court below. It appears from the record that the subject-matter of the petition was finally heard, and decided by the Circuit Court of Baltimore City on the 6th day of July, 1812, on the hill there filed for an injunction and for other relief, by Joseph M. Cone, and the petition of Coburn also there filed in the same cause, praying to he made a co-complainant therein; both of which were dismissed, and the injunction refused.

The proceedings had in the Circuit Court of- Baltimore City, are exhibited by the appellees, and relied on as an estoppel against the appellants, and conclusive against their right to the relief now sought. From an examination of these proceedings, we are satisfied that the bill of complaint filed in the Circuit Court of the City, presented the same questions, and prayed substantially the same relief, as the appellants now seek by the present proceeding. That Court it appears refused relief, upon the authority of Hough vs. Horsey, 36 Md., 181 . The Court being of opinion that the facts and circumstances of the case brought Cone, the assignee, within the principle there decided.

The petition of Coburn, the original mortgagor, to he made a co-complainant, was dismissed by the same ³⁸⁶ Court, -without assigning any reason therefore. Probably however for the reason