Fahey v. Mottu

Yellott, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal is from a judgment in an action of ejeitment instituted in the Court of Common Pleas of Baltimore City by the appellant, against the appellee for the recovery of a lot of ground situate at the N. W. corner of Oregon and Clay streets in said city. As shown by the record this property was, by a deed dated July 11th, 1879, and duly recorded, conveyed by the appellant to one Michael Kelly. The same property was afterwards, by a.deed dated March 8th, 1886, conveyed by Kelly to the-appellant; hut anterior to this last mentioned conveyance, two judgments had been rendered by a justice of the peace in suits brought by James H. Wilson against said Kelly; and on these judgments executions had been issued.' Under these executions the property was sold on the 13th of February, 1884, to one Charles A. Price,, who, having received a deed from the constable, conveyed said property, by deed dated the 13th day bf April, 1885, to Theodore Mottu, the appellee.

If the judgments and -subsequent proceedings thereunder were valid, it would seem that the title of the defendant rests on a solid foundation. The questions to-he determined therefore relate to the validity of these-proceedings, including the judgments, rendered by the justicé of the peace. The parties,^having elected to try the cause without the intervention of a jury, and having adduced all their evidence, the appellant asked the Court to rule: “That the papers offered in evidence in this case by the defendant, are insufficient to show title in him, because it does not appear from the proceedings in the case of J. H. Wilson vs. Michael Kelly, that the defendant Michael Kelly was summoned, or that any summons was issued against him in ²⁵³ said cause, and because there is no such return hy the justice to the Superior Court as required by law, and therefore the verdict must be for the plaintiff. “Second.1 That the levy of the constable in said cause is insufficient to authorize the sale of the lot or parcel of ground described in this case, and therefore the verdict .must be for the plaintiff.” Upon an examination of the record, we find nothing to show that a summons in either case had ever been issued against Michael Kelly. It does not appear that the said Kelly knew of any suits having been brought against him at the time when these judgments were rendered.

The-proceedings before the justice of the peace, who rendered the judgments, and all that was subsequently done, including the report of sale made by the constable, as well as the final ratification by the Superior Court, appear in the record. These proceedings show that the defendant failed to appear in either case aud that on the days he failed to appear, judgments were rendered against him. But no summons seems ever to have been issued. The fact of the issuance of a summons in either case does not appear on the face of the proceedings.

No Court can render a judgment against a party who has not been summoned ;■ and it is an elementary principle that when the Court rendering the judgment, is one of limited or special jurisdiction, every fact essential to the exercise of its judicial functions must appear on the face of the proceedings when the regularity of those proceedings are brought under review. When the Court is one of general jurisdiction, its proceedings are presumed to have been in conformity with legal requirements until there is affirmative proof to the contrary. But with respect to Courts of limited jurisdiction, there must be affirmative proof in support of the regularity of the proceedings. It is said, that “no