## Facts

- Dr. Laurence H. Baker and Rebekah W. Baker owned a 65-acre farm in Howard County, Maryland, used for livestock, crops, poultry, and long-term rabbit nutrition experiments.
- Howard County Hunt, an unincorporated fox-hunting group, regularly hunted in the area using a pack of foxhounds furnished and handled by huntsman Philip Bowen.
- During hunting seasons, the hounds repeatedly entered and ran over the Bakers’ land, damaging crops and garden structures and disturbing livestock and experimental animals.
- In one incident, the hounds swarmed the rabbit enclosures near sunset; in another, the hounds attacked and bit Mrs. Baker, which the Hunt’s leadership acknowledged in correspondence.
- The Bakers complained and gave notice, but the incursions continued, interfering with farm operations and experiments; Mrs. Baker ultimately left the farm due to the disturbances.
- In February 1936, after finding hounds in his chicken yard amid dead and frightened chickens, Dr. Baker shot three hounds to protect his poultry.
- The Bakers sought an injunction in equity to stop the Hunt, the huntsman, and the hounds from entering or overrunning their land; the trial court denied relief and dismissed the bill.

## Issues

1. Whether equity may enjoin repeated and continuing trespasses by another’s animals when damages at law are inadequate and future invasions are likely.
2. Whether a hunting association and its huntsman are responsible when, after notice, they continue to use a pack of hounds in a manner that foreseeably results in trespass and damage to neighboring land.
3. Whether the landowner’s shooting of trespassing hounds to protect property constitutes unclean hands barring injunctive relief.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed the dismissal and directed that an injunction issue.
- The court held that repeated, foreseeable trespasses causing continuing interference may be enjoined where legal remedies would be inadequate and would require multiple suits.
- The Hunt and the huntsman could not avoid responsibility by characterizing the hounds’ course as an unavoidable incident of the chase after they had notice of recurring invasions and harm.
- The unclean-hands defense was rejected; shooting trespassing hounds to protect poultry did not bar equitable relief on these facts.

## Legal Principles

- Equity may restrain repeated or continuing trespass when the conduct indicates persistence and damages are inadequate, including because harms are difficult to quantify or would generate a multiplicity of actions.
- Persons who control animals may be held accountable for trespass and resulting harm when they know, or should know, that their use of the animals will likely cause invasions of another’s land and they fail to prevent recurrence.
- Recreational or customary sporting activities confer no special privilege to invade private property; they remain subject to ordinary rules protecting possession and quiet enjoyment.
- The unclean-hands doctrine does not bar an injunction where the plaintiff’s conduct is a defensive response to ongoing trespass aimed at protecting property, rather than inequitable conduct related to the claim for relief.

## Conclusion

The court ordered injunctive relief because the defendants’ foxhounds repeatedly and foreseeably trespassed after notice, causing ongoing and hard-to-measure interference with the Bakers’ farm and experiments, and the plaintiff’s defensive shooting of trespassing hounds did not make equitable relief unavailable.


Baker v. Howard County Hunt, 171 Md. 159, 188 A. 223 (Md. 1936)