Gelston v. Thompson

Robinson, J., delivered the opinion of the court. The bill in this cause was filed by an assignee of the mortgagor, against the assignees of the mortgagee, claiming the equity of redemption and an account for rents and profits. The appellants, in their answer, claim possession under a Sheriff’s sale, deny the jurisdiction of a Court of Equity to grant relief in the premises, and rely upon limitations and lapse of time, as a bar to any accountability for rents and profits. The Sheriff’s sale under which the appellants’ claim was made, by virtue of a writ of levari facias, issued out of the Court of Common Pleas for Baltimore City, on a judgment to enforce a mechanics’ lien.

In Miller v. Barroll, 14 Md. 173 , it was decided that the Court of Common Pleas had no jurisdiction in proceedings to enforce a mechanics’ lien. The judgment being therefore “ coram non judice,” the sale by the Sheriff was inoperative and void. But it is claimed that the appellants being in possession under color of title, the remedy of the appellees was by an action at law. Hipp v. Babin, 19 *How. 271, and other authorities relied on by the counsel for the appellants, do not sustain this position.

They announce the well established principle, that a Court of Equity will not grant relief, where a party has a plain, adequate and complete remedy at law. But this case does not come within this general rule. The legal estate was in ⁶⁰¹ the assignees of the mortgagee, and a Court of Equity, was the proper forum to administer relief to a mortgagor or his assignee, claiming the equity of redemption and an account of rents and profits. In Quarrell v. Beckford, 1 Madd.

Ch. 151, the heir-at-law of- the mortgagee was in possession under color of title by virtue of a decree of foreclosure, but it was held that the assignees of the mortgagor, not made parties to the bill, -were entitled to the equity of redemption and also to an account of rents and profits. It would be difficult to distinguish in principle this case from the one above referred to. But it was contended, that admitting the right of the appellee to redeem, he is barred by lapse of time and limitations