Blondell v. Consolidated Gas Co.
89 Md. 732, 43 A. 817 (1899)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A company that owns equipment and bears legal responsibility for its safe operation has the right to exclusive control over that equipment, and any continuous, unauthorized physical interference by a third party constitutes an enjoinable trespass, even if the interference occurs with the consent of the owner of the premises where the equipment is located.
Facts:
- Consolidated Gas Company of Baltimore City (Consolidated Gas) manufactured and supplied illuminating gas to residents.
- As required by law, Consolidated Gas placed a gas meter and connecting pipes, which it owned, on the premises of each customer to register gas consumption.
- Consolidated Gas was legally responsible for keeping the meters and connections in proper and safe working order, as illuminating gas is an inherently dangerous substance.
- The Mutual Gas Saving Company of Baltimore City (Mutual Gas), with the consent of the gas consumers, began attaching a device called a 'governor' to the meters owned by Consolidated Gas.
- The purpose of the governor device was to regulate the pressure of the gas being delivered to the consumer.
- To attach the governors, agents of Mutual Gas had to physically interfere with and handle Consolidated Gas's meters and connecting pipes.
- Mutual Gas had already affixed a large number of these governors and was continuing to do so.
Procedural Posture:
- Consolidated Gas Company filed a bill in a court of first instance seeking a prohibitory injunction to stop future interference and a mandatory injunction to compel the removal of existing devices.
- The Mutual Gas Saving Company demurred to the bill, arguing that Consolidated Gas had an adequate remedy at law.
- The trial court overruled the demurrer.
- After a hearing on the merits, the trial court granted the prohibitory injunction against future interference but denied the mandatory injunction for the removal of existing governors.
- Both parties appealed the trial court's decree to the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the state's highest court. Consolidated Gas was the appellant regarding the denial of the mandatory injunction, and Mutual Gas was the appellant regarding the grant of the prohibitory injunction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a third-party company commit an enjoinable trespass by repeatedly attaching its own devices to a gas company's meters without the gas company's permission, when the meters are located on consumers' properties and the consumers have consented to the attachment?
Opinions:
Majority - Fowler, J.
Yes. A third-party company commits an enjoinable trespass by attaching its devices to the gas company's meters without permission. The court reasoned that the meters and their essential connections are the undisputed property of Consolidated Gas. Because the law imposes a duty on Consolidated Gas to maintain this equipment safely, particularly given the dangerous nature of illuminating gas, the company must have exclusive control over it. To impose legal responsibility without granting the right of control would be 'as unjust as it would be absurd.' The actions of Mutual Gas, regardless of whether they caused actual damage, constituted unauthorized interference with another's property, which is a trespass. Given that these trespasses were continuous and numerous, equity jurisdiction is proper to prevent a multiplicity of lawsuits. The consumer's consent is irrelevant, as a consumer cannot grant a third party the right to interfere with property belonging to another. Therefore, the ongoing attachment of governors is an enjoinable trespass, and the ones already attached must be removed by the party that illegally placed them.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that property ownership, when coupled with a legal duty and public safety concerns, grants the owner a right of exclusive control that cannot be infringed upon even with the consent of a third-party property owner. The court's ruling establishes that continuous, low-level interference with property used for a dangerous purpose constitutes irreparable harm sufficient for an injunction, even without proof of specific monetary damages in each instance. This precedent is crucial for utility companies, confirming their authority to maintain the integrity of their distribution systems against unauthorized third-party modifications and reinforcing that equitable remedies are available to prevent a multiplicity of trespass actions.
