Textor v. Shipley

Baltimore City Circuit Court

Textor v. Shipley

1 Balt. C. Rep. 231

DecidedNovember 2, 1891

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Balt. C. Rep. 231 (Textor v. Shipley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Baltimore City Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Textor v. Shipley, 1 Balt. C. Rep. 231 (Md. Super. Ct. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

DENNIS, J.

It appears by the bill that the Mayor and City Council undertook to sell in fee the property in question and made a deed therefore to the defendant, Shipley.

The latter thereupon executed a lease to the defendant, Elizabeth Black, under which lease the said defendant is now in possession. The bill is in the nature of a bill of quia timet and seeks to have the deed from the Mayor and City Council to Shipley and the lease from Shipley to said Black set aside as illegal and void. It is well settled that those only who have a clear legal and equitable title to land, connected with possession, have any right to claim the interference of a court of equity to give them peace or dissipate a cloud on title. Polk vs. Pendleton, 31 Md. 124; Carter, &e., vs. Noolfork, 71 Md. 292. In this case the plaintiff is not in possession and the plain object of the suit is to try the question of right and obtain possession from the defendants, claiming under an adverse title. The remedy is at law. The demurrer to the bill will be sustained.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DENNIS, J.

It appears by the bill that the Mayor and City Council undertook to sell in fee the property in question and made a deed therefore to the defendant, Shipley.

The latter thereupon executed a lease to the defendant, Elizabeth Black, under which lease the said defendant is now in possession. The bill is in the nature of a bill of quia timet and seeks to have the deed from the Mayor and City Council to Shipley and the lease from Shipley to said Black set aside as illegal and void. It is well settled that those only who have a clear legal and equitable title to land, connected with possession, have any right to claim the interference of a court of equity to give them peace or dissipate a cloud on title. Polk vs. Pendleton, 31 Md. 124; Carter, &e., vs. Noolfork, 71 Md. 292. In this case the plaintiff is not in possession and the plain object of the suit is to try the question of right and obtain possession from the defendants, claiming under an adverse title. The remedy is at law. The demurrer to the bill will be sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Balt. C. Rep. 231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/textor-v-shipley-mdcirctctbalt-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack