Leekley v. Dewing

Hammond, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. From a decree permanently enjoining him from in any manner obstructing the right of the several appellees to use ⁵⁷ a fifteen-foot road across his woodland to the public road in Queen Anne’s County from Centreville to Spaniard’s Neck for ingress to and egress from their respective properties on foot or by vehicle for all lawful purposes, John Eeekley appeals. He claims that, over his objection, equity should not have taken jurisdiction either to issue a preliminary injunction or to hear the case and issue the permanent injunction; that, on his timely motions, the case should have been transferred to a court of law for a determination of title; that the appellees failed to establish easements appurtenant to their respective properties over his woodland; and as an alternative to the last contention, that any easement established is limited to the use of the road for the purpose of hauling timber or firewood. The bill of complaint alleged that the road was the only reasonably convenient roadway or right of way in existence to the public road from the properties of the appellees; that it has been continuously, notoriously and adversely used by them and by the former owners of their land for over thirty years as a means of ingress and egress; that Eeekley has threatened to deny them access to their respective lots by closing the road unless they ask his permission to use it; and that if he does so they will suffer immediate, substantial and irreparable injury and be put to the necessity of instituting a multiplicity of actions to protect their rights.

It is clear that equity long has granted a temporary injunction against irreparable damage whether final adjudication was to be made there or in a law court 1 and that where complainant has no other reasonably convenient way, the obstruction of his way constitutes irreparable damage that entitles him to a temporary injunction. 2 There was no error in the granting of the temporary injunction. The quondam rule that law must decide questions of title to land is far from inflexible, as the later cases make ⁵⁸ plain. Where there is no reasonable doubt as to the title or the propriety of equitable action is evident, an equity court may act in cases involving title and enjoin continuing trespasses or declare rights as to ways. Southern Maryland Agr.

Ass’n v. Meyer, 196 Md. 31, 34 ; Potomac Edison Co. v. Routzahn, 192 Md. 449, 456-458 ; Dalton v. Real Estate & Improvement Co., 201 Md. 34 ; Campbell v. Bishields, 197 Md. 572 ; Moore v. McAllister, 216 Md. 497 ; Lichtenberg v. Sachs, 200 Md. 145 . The chancellor concluded that “the title of the plaintiffs to the easement claimed over the way in dispute is so clear and free from doubt that there was no reason to require the parties to resort to a court of law to establish legal title * * We agree that retention of jurisdiction and final adjudication by the equity court was proper. The various appellees owned respective parcels north of the Leekley tract over which the disputed road runs. On one of these parcels there is a valuable stand of white pine and a body of water known as Eagle Pond.

Another parcel contains valuable timber. North of the northernmost parcels, and between them and the town of Burrisville, where another public road lies, is a marshy stream two hundred to three hundred feet wide, impassable, at least for vehicular traffic, most of the time. On the southernmost parcel of appellees’ land, contiguous to the Leekley tract, lived the Watson family for a number of years, from perhaps 1924, but certainly from 1927, until 1944. Portions of this parcel were cultivated and from time to time hogs were raised on it.

In 1944 until some time in the 1950s the Watson family gathered fruit from trees on their lot and sold it to pay the taxes. We think it plainly established that the disputed road had been regularly used by certain of the appellees and their predecessors from at least 1913 on, and that it had been used by all of the appellees and their predecessors for well over twenty years before the filing of suit. They and their agents regularly used it to visit their lands and to haul firewood and timber from them, and they and their employees, friends and members