Randle v. Sutton

Bartol, C J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The proceedings in this case originated before a justice of the peace, and were instituted by the appellee against the appellant, for the purpose of recovering the sum of thirteen dollars,upon an account filed with the proceedings. Judgment being rendered by the justice, in favor of the plaintiff for $13 and $2.10 costs, the defendant appealed to the Circuit Court, where the judgment was affirmed ; ⁶⁷ whereupon the defendant appealed to this Court. It is well settled that unless the Circuit Court was without jurisdiction, its decision was final ; and the only ground upon which the appeal can be entertained, is that the Circuit Court had not jurisdiction to render the judgment.

Hall vs. The State, 12 G. & J., 329 ; Webster vs. Cockey, 9 Gill, 92 ; State vs. Bogue, 5 Md., 352 ; Meats vs. Remare, 33 Md., 246 ; Herzberg vs. Adams, 39 Md., 309 . The case, as it appeared before the justice of the peace, was an ordinary proceeding for the collection of a small debt, his jurisdiction was therefore very plain, there is nothing to show that it was called in question, though the appellant’s counsel have stated in argument that objection to the jurisdiction was made before the justice The account is “for ground-rent for loading iron-ore on sideling at 50 cents per car,” — and states the dates and the numbers of the cars. In the Circuit Court on the appeal, the defendant filed the following paper. • “The defendant and appellant alleges that the title to land is involved in this cause, that the said Samuel Sutton, if he ever had any title to the land upon which rent is alleged to have accrued in this case, has been disseized by the President and Directors of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company many years ago, that a part of said land is the bed of an old county road, as the defendant is informed, and the major part thereof has been occupied by the said Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, as part and parcel of the depot franchises of said road.” This paper was signed by counsel and sworn to by the defendant. It is contended that this affidavit is sufficient to show that the case was not one within the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace and consequently the Circuit Court was without jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment .of affirm ⁶⁸ anee on the appeal; because it appears from the affidavit that the title to lands is involved ; and for this we have been referred to the Code, Art. 51, sec. 14; which provides that “no justice of the peace shall have any jurisdiction in actions where the title to lands in involved, nor in actions for slander, for breach of promise to marry, or to enforce any lien for work or materials furnished.” This section came before this Court for construction at the last term in Deitrich vs. Swartz, 41 Md., 196 .

In that case the appellant had cut some logs for timber, which the appellee carried away, and the former brought a suit of replevin in the Circuit Court to recover them ; upon the execution of the writ the appraisers valued the logs at $10.71, thereupon the defendant pleaded that the case was not within the jurisdiction of the Court, the plaintiff replied that the property in the logs depended upon the ownership of the land upon