Gore v. Hall

Delaplaine, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an action of trespass quare clausum fregit instituted in the Circuit Court for Dorchéster County by Oliver R. C. Gore against Cassell C. Hall, J. Wilbur Jarrett, Edwin L. Linthicum and Samuel W. Linthicum to establish his title to a parcel of timberland in Dorchester County and to recover damages for timber cut and removed therefrom. The parcel in dispute contains 14 acres and is a part of a tract of 50 acres known as “Roberson’s Range,” for which a patent was issued by the Land Office of the Province of Maryland to Charles Roberson in the year 1714. The parcel was claimed by Hall under a paper title from Samuel W. Linthicum.

Three of the defendants, Hall and the two Linthicums, died before the trial of the case. Their personal representatives ’ were substituted as defendants. The case was tried before the Court without a jury. At the close of plaintiff’s case, three of the defendants, Jarrett, Louise A. Linthicum, administratrix of the estate of Edwin L. Linthicum, deceased, and Ethel D. Linthicum, administratrix of the' estate of Samuel W. Linthicum, deceased, moved for directed verdicts on the ground that there was ffio evidence of any trespass by Jarrett or the Linthicums'on the parcel in dispute.

The Court granted their motions, and heard the casé against the only remaining defendant, Eloise L. Hall, executrix of the estate of Cassell C. Hall, deceased. Plaintiff claimed that in 1890 his brother, William Gore, now over 84 years old, inherited the parcel from their father, Edward' Gore; that in October, 1911, his brother conveyed it to Frederick W. Josenhans and wife; that on December 31, 1923, Katherine Josenhans, widow, conveyed it to him; that on .January 1, 1929, he conveyed it to Hudson Seal Fur Company, a Delaware corporation, and on the same day that corporation reconveyed ⁴⁸⁹ it to him by mortgage; and that after default by the corporation the parcel was sold to him at public auction and was conveyed to him on July 31, 1934. At the outset plaintiff sought to prove that he had record title to the parcel. He asserted that the description in the deeds of 1923, 1929 and 1934 is the same, as that in the patent issued by the Land Office in 1714.

The trial judge, however, found that the record title was not sufficient to warrant a verdict in his, favor. Plaintiff then undertook to show that he was entitled to the parcel by adverse possession. The trial judge held (1) that plaintiff’s brother had not acquired title by adverse possession during the period of 21 years from 1890 to 1911, as W. Alvin Linthicum, through whom Jarrett claimed title, had put some buildings on the parcel more than fifty years' ago and had cut some timber from the land; and (2) that plaintiff himself had not acquired title by adverse possession because he never occupied the parcel for twenty consecutive years. The judge accordingly found in favor of defendant, Eloise L. Hall, executrix of the estate of Cassell C. Hall, deceased.

From the judgment entered in favor of all four defendants, plaintiff appealed to this Court. We affirm the action of the trial judge in granting the motions for directed verdicts in favor of Jarrett, Louise A. Linthicum, administratrix of the estate of Edwin L. Linthicum, deceased, and Ethel D. Linthicum, administratrix of the estate of Samuel W. Linthicum, deceased, because there is no testimony whatever in the appendix to appellant’s brief, and we were not convinced that the trial judge erred in those rulings. Appellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that appellant failed to include any of the testimony in the appendix to his brief. On many occasions we have emphasized that Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals requires that the appendix to the appellant’s brief shall contain “such parts of the record as he desires the Court to read.” Seybolt v. Baber, 203 Md. 20 , 97 A. 2d 907 ; Schwartzman v. Payne, 203 Md. ⁴⁹⁰ 256, 100 A. 2d 28 ; Gmurek v. Kajder, 208 Md. 437 , 101 A. 2d 204 .

We will not dismiss this appeal, however, because it can be seen from the trial judge’s opinion, which has been printed in its entirety in the appendix, and from the testimony which has been printed in appellant’s brief, that appellant is entitled to the parcel in dispute. It is true that none of the deeds have been reproduced in the appendix, and therefore the question of appellant’s record title cannot be determined. However, it is possible to decide the issue of title by adverse possession. In order to establish title to land by adverse possession under the Statute of 21 James I, ch. 16, which is in force in Maryland, the claimant must show that such possession was actual, notorious, exclusive, hostile, under claim of title or ownership, and continuous or uninterrupted for the period of twenty years. 2 Alexander’s British Statutes, Coe’s Ed.,