Ireton v. Mayor of Baltimore

Irving, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant sued the appellee, in Baltimore County, for damages done his real estate and mill thereon, by the •construction of a lake in Baltimore County near by the premises of the plaintiff. Summons issued and was returned “summoned,” on the 11th of September, 1882. Upon the summons was endorsed in the hand-writing of the City Counsellor of Baltimore : “ Enter my appearance for the defendant.

John P. Foe, City Counsellor.” On the 18th of September the City Counsellor’s appearance was generally entered on’the docket, and he filed a plea on behalf of the city, and plaintiff was put under rule replication. The cause was continued two terms, and then issue was joined, and a jury was empanelled and sworn. On the day following the swearing of the jury, the Court granted the defendant leave to withdraw his plea. That being done the defendant by its counsel moved to quash the writ of summons.

The writ was quashed, and judgment was given against the appellant for costs. From this action of the Court and judgment this appeal is taken. Ho question seems to have been made in the Court below in respect to the return of the sheriff, which does not state in what manner the writ was served on the defendant, which is a municipal corporation. ⁴³⁴ The motion made and granted was to quash the summons, and not the return thereof made by the sheriff. The sole ground on which the motion to quash, and the judgment of the Court quashing the same, is defended, is the contention, that a municipal corporation cannot be sued outside its territorial limits; and that conceding that the service was made on an officer of the city temporarily in Baltimore County, which may be done in certain cases of other corporations, (which the return does not show) jurisdiction was not thereby acquired; and consequently, the appearance of the City Counsellor could not confer jurisdiction upon the Circuit Court for Baltimore County to hear and determine the case.

The injury sued for in this case was done to real estate and the action therefore was local and not transitory. This is the common law rule, and by decision in Patterson vs. Wilson, 6 G. & J., 499 , has been held to be,the law in this State. The Circuit Court for Baltimore County being a Court of general jurisdiction had undoubted cognizance of the subject-matter. It is therefore immaterial, for the purpose of this decision, whether the writ or summons in this cause was