Waltemeyer v. Baughman ex rel. Baughman

Irving, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an action of ejectment for a lot of ground and. improvements thereon in Baltimore County, originally leased by Robert Catón in 1824, for ninety-nine years, renewable forever, which by successive assignments finally became the property of Adam Waltemeyer, by deed from Samuel J. Donaldson, trustee, dated 6th of March, 1835. Waltemeyer died in 1859, but administration on his estate was not granted until 1876, when the property now in controversy, was sold' and conveyed to the plaintiffs in this, suit by the administrator. They leased the property to one Hugh Rogan, who occupied the same for several years as tenant of appellees, and was then rented by the defendant, the present appellant.

The appellant rested his defence upon two grounds, viz.,, that the property was given to him by his father, Adam Waltemeyer; and that title was out of Adam Waltemeyer and his representatives, and in J ames Blair, (or his representatives.) The Court below ruled that there was no legally sufficient evidence to support the contention, that there was a gift from the father to the appellant, and as we think properly; so that the appel ²⁰³ lant’s case depends solely on the question ' whether there was a legally outstanding title in any one which protected him in his possession as against the appellees. The appellant relies on a deed from his father, Adam Waltemeyer, to one James Blair, dated the first of January, eighteen hundred and thirty-sis; hut does not claim under Blair. The appellees contend that this deed affords the appellant no protection in his possession, because there had been a notorious, continuous, esclusive and adverse possession by Adam Waltemeyer and his-representatives for a period of forty years and more, which barred James Blair or his representatives of any claim on the property. « The first prayer of the plaintiffs and the only prayer of the defendant, directly presented the effect of this deed, when considered together with respect to the evidence. The plaintiffs’ prayer does not refer to the evidence of adverse possession, but was, of course, based on it; but the defendant’s prayer asked the Court to say there was “no evidence of continuous adverse possession in the plaintiffs, or those under whom they claim, for twenty years,” &g.

The Court rejected this prayer of the defendant; for not only was there some evidence of “ adverse possession,” for a period sufficient to presume a deed, or bar the action of Blair or his representatives; but assuming the truth of that which was proven, and which was wholly uncontradicted, it was conclusive against James Blair, or those claiming under him. An outstanding title in another which will give protection to a defendant in ejectment, this Court decided in Hall vs. Gittings’ Lessee, 2 H. & J., 112 , “means such a title as the stranger could recover on in ejectment against either of the contending parties.” It must be therefore a clear subsisting title on which recovery can be had. According to the evidence a man by the name .of Matwell occupied the property after Waltemeyer purchased of ²⁰⁴ Donaldson, trustee, and was in possession when Adam Waltemeyer conveyed to Blair, and until 1837 or 1838, and died in actual possession. After his death, Adam Waltemeyer took possession and carried his family there.

From that time onward he paid the taxes and paid the rent reserved in the original lease ; and in fact occupied the property as his own. A new brick house was built on the premises by his wife or his son. Whether the wife’s or son’s money paid for this house is immaterial. The building on the land is the material fact.

The payment of taxes, the payment of the 'rent reserved in the lease, and the allowance of members of his family to spend their money in erecting buildings and improving the property, are facts clearly indicating a claim of title to the property, and that the possession was maintained under such claim. It is the intent with which the possession is maintained, that gives it its character as adversary, and the acts mentioned under the authorities are clearly indicative of a claim of property, and characterize the possession as one under a claim of title. Angell on Limitations, 399, 400, 401, 402 and 403 ; Wood on Limitation of Actions, 513, 521. In this State the Statute of 21st James I, ch. 16, is in force, and “possession for twenty years by force of that