Welsh v. Welsh

Barnes, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal involves an action in ejectment arising out of a dispute over the location of lines of adjoining properties. It ⁶²¹ is admitted that all parties have good record title to the respective tracts or lots designated in their deeds. The appellee, Charles C. Welsh, brought an ejectment action at law in the Circuit Court for Allegany County (Getty, J.) against the appellants, Harry E. Welsh and Elizabeth Welsh, his wife, alleging that he was the owner and in possession of a tract of land called “Good Luck” and an adjoining half acre tract called “Brickyard,” located in Westernport, Allegany County, Maryland, and that the appellants had constructed a garage and additions to that garage on these tracts of land.

The jury found, inter alia, that the improvements owned by the appellants were located on property owned by the appellee. In this Court, appellants make two arguments: (1) that it is impossible to ascertain from the jury’s verdict the correct location of the disputed lines, and (2) that the trial court should have directed a verdict for the appellants since the testimony and plats of J. Maxwell Mathias, appellee’s surveyor, were improperly admitted into evidence. We disagree with both contentions. (1) In 1950, the appellants built a service station on what they thought was their land, relying on a survey made in 1949 by their surveyor Philip Hartig, Jr. In 1953 or 1954, Mr. Hartig made a second survey which shows that roughly one quarter of the appellants’ garage is on the property now owned by the appellee.

In 1957, Mr. Mathias, appellee’s surveyor, made a plat showing that roughly three quarters of appellants’ garage is on the appellee’s land. 1 In 1962, or thereafter, the appellants built an addition on the east side of the garage, thus further ⁶²² encroaching on the appellee’s land if either of the last two surveys is correct. The Mathias plat was introduced into evidence hy the appellee, the plaintiff below, and both Hartig plats were -introduced by the appellants. After all the testimony had been taken, the trial judge, with'out objection by either party, instructed the jury to answer the following question “yes” or “no”: “Are the improvements •owned by Harry Welsh, the defendant here [one of the appellants in this Court] located on property owned by Charles Welsh, the plaintiff [appellee in this Court] ?” The jury answered “yes.” The appellants argue that since there were two plats in evidence showing the appellants’ improvement on the appellee’s land, but by differing amounts, it is impossible to know which the jury found to be correct and that a judgment cannot be entered on the basis of the Mathias plat. Thus, goes the argument, the case must be remanded for a new trial.

We disagree. It is settled that a judgment cannot be entered on an uncertain verdict, but in this case there is no ambiguity when the verdict is viewed in light of the instructions given to the jury. See Browne v. Browne, 22 Md. 103 (1864); Friel v. Freeland, 231 Md. 27 , 188 A. 2d 340 (1963). The instructions were, in part, as follows: “If you believe the testimony of Mr. Mathias, you accept that, then your verdict would be for the plaintiff.

If you find from the evidence that the survey lines of the tract called Good Luck and the one half acre of Brickyard are correct, then that portion of the defendants’ garage as shown on Mr. Mathias’ plat, based on Mr. Mathias’ evidence and plat, shall be found to be located on