Maryland State Archives

See also MSA SC 5339-230-14

Appeal from Baltimore City Court of Common Pleas

OVERVIEW: Petitioners argued that they complied with the notice and application requirements contained in Baltimore, Md., City Code art. 50, §§ 25 and 27 (1893), and that, therefore, defendants were required to issue a building permit to them. Defendants, on the other hand, argued that Baltimore, Md., City Code art. 50, § 28 (1893) gave them authority to deny a permit if, in the opinion of their majority, the building for which the permit was applied for would not conform to the general character of the buildings previously erected in the same locality and would tend materially to depreciate the value of the surrounding improved or unimproved property. The court reversed the order and remanded the cause, opining that that portion of § 28, which attempted to give defendants such arbitrary authority to deny petitioners a building permit was ultra vires and void. The court reasoned that neither the City's charter nor any other legislative enactment conferred any such power upon the City or its agents either expressly or implicitly, and that such power was not included within a general grant to a city of "police powers."

First Case:

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) Bostick and Noel v. Sams, et al., 1902, April Term, case no. 54, p. 380, MdHR 640 [MSA S412-14, 1/66/14/45].

COURT OF APPEALS (Records and Briefs) Bostick and Noel v. Sams, et al., 1902, April Term, case no. 54 [MSA S1733-188, 1/65/2/36].

COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions) Bostick and Noel v. Sams, et al., 1902, April Term, case no. 54, MdHR 707-144 [MSA S393-130, 1/65/13/76].

Trial Court Records:
Case filed 8 November 1901; dismissed 18 March 1902.

BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Docket A) Bostick and Noel v. Sams, et al., 1901, Liber 41A, p. 250, case no. A1250 [MSA T55-41, 3/4/1/24].

BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Papers A) Bostick and Noel v. Sams, et al., 1901, box no. 2374, case no. A1250 [MSA T53-2947, 3/8/3/67].

Second Case:

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) Bostick and Noel v. Sams, et al., 1902, April Term, case no. 53, p. 379, MdHR 640 [MSA S412-14, 1/66/14/45].

COURT OF APPEALS (Records and Briefs) Bostick and Noel v. Sams, et al., 1902, April Term, case no. 53 [MSA S1733-188, 1/65/2/36].

COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions) Bostick and Noel v. Sams, et al., 1902, April Term, case no. 53, MdHR 707-144 [MSA S393-130, 1/65/13/76].

Trial Court Records:

Case filed 19 March 1902. Unable to locate any Court of Common Pleas records. See information contained in Records and Briefs.

Baltimore City Archives:

Baltimore City Solicitor case file no. 512--Unable to locate

Scanned as msaref 5458-51-4430

OVERVIEW: The indictment against defendant alleged that he violated the Act by using a tenement for the manufacture of garments by other than immediate family members, using such tenement and not being a member of the family living there, using such tenement without obtaining a permit, and failing to keep a register of the persons to whom work was given. The trial court sustained his demurrer. On appeal, the court reversed. The court held that the Act was constitutional as an exercise of the state's police power. The Act was intended for the preservation and protection of the public health and safety, and there was nothing in the Act that indicated that its purpose did not have a real and substantial relation to the police power. It was a matter of judicial notice that the manufacture of garments in improperly ventilated, unsanitary, and overcrowded apartments would likely promote the spread of disease. Thus, the State could regulate the number of persons there. The provision relating to the register was proper to enable health officers to trace where the work was being done. The Act invaded no private right of property and did not confer arbitrary or unrestricted power upon any official.

See MSA SC 5339-62-87.

See also MSA SC 5339-230-25

Appeal from Baltimore City Circuit Court No. 2

OVERVIEW: The residents of an unserved district complained to the Commission that there was a demand for rail service in their area and that the company held a right of way to construct a line but refused to do so. The company answered that it had determined that line was not profitable. The Commission held hearings and ordered the company to make the extension. The company sought judicial review. The trial court vacated the Commission's order and remanded. On remand, the Commission again ordered the extension but downsized the requirements. The company sought judicial review. The trial court enjoined the Commission from enforcement of the order as unreasonable. The Commission appealed. The court affirmed. Because the charter only authorized the extension, the company was not required to construct it to the point were it was not remunerative. The Commission's power did not include the ability to order an unprofitable extension regardless of the demand. The Commission's attempt to designate the equipment and construction was an improper invasion of the honest judgment and discretion of the company's directors.

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) Public Service Commission v. United Railways & Electric Co. of Baltimore, 1915, April Term, case no. 44, p. 26, MdHR 19,492 [MSA S412-17, 1/67/6/3].

COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions) Public Service Commission v. United Railways & Electric Co. of Baltimore, 1915, April Term, case no. 44, MdHR 707-184 [MSA S393-170, 1/65/14/20].

COURT OF APPEALS (Records and Briefs) Public Service Commission v. United Railways & Electric Co. of Baltimore, 1915, April Term, case no. 44 [MSA S1733-445, 1/65/4/15].

Trial Court Records:

BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT NO. 2 (Equity Docket A) United Railways and Electric Co. of Baltimore v. Public Service Commission, 1913, Volume 22A, pp. 416, 479, Case no. 9587A [MSA T996-22, 3/18/6/36].

BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT NO. 2 (Equity Papers A) United Railways and Electric Co. of Baltimore v. Public Service Commission, 1913, Box 998 Case no. 9587A [MSA T56-877, 3/23/13/14].

Baltimore City Archives:

Baltimore City Archives, Law Department, Case Files, Car Fare Hearing, United Railways & Electric, 1927, case no. 50,263, box no. 449 [MSA BRG13-2-10-1, BC/29/12/019].

Scanned as msaref 5458-51-3510; 5458-51-4109; 5458-51-4453

OVERVIEW: Because there were no allegations that testator's agreement that his stock in family business was not part of his estate was in any way wrongfully obtained, expenses of executors who investigated that matter were not chargeable to estate.

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) Sonneborn v. Hutzler, 1919, April Term, case no. 11, p. 193, MdHR 19,492 [MSA S412-17, 1/67/6/3].

COURT OF APPEALS (Miscellaneous Papers) Sonneborn v. Hutzler, 1919, April Term, case no. 11, MdHR 708-62 [MSA S397-65, 1/65/7/3].

COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions) Sonneborn v. Hutzler, 1919, April Term, case no. 11, MdHR 707-196 [MSA S393-182, 1/65/14/32].

COURT OF APPEALS (Records and Briefs) Sonneborn v. Hutzler, 1919, April Term, case no. 11 [MSA S1733-526, 1/65/4/96].

Trial Court and Probate Records:

BALTIMORE CITY REGISTER OF WILLS (Wills) Henry Sonneborn, 1918, HWJ 127, p. 446-461 [MSA CM219-143, CR 181-3].
Note: Microfilm of will is poor quality; see version recorded in Records and Briefs.

BALTIMORE CITY REGISTER OF WILLS (Inventories) Henry Sonneborn, 1918, HWJ 220, p. 408-414 [MSA CM200-154, CR 10362-2].
See also version recorded in Records and Briefs.

BALTIMORE CITY REGISTER OF WILLS (Estate Docket) Henry Sonneborn, 1918, HWJ 43, p. 256 [MSA CM195-32, CR 10690-2].

BALTIMORE CITY REGISTER OF WILLS (Orphans Court Docket) Henry Sonneborn, 1918, Vol. 1, p. 226, case no. 430 [MSA T600-40, 2/32/13/14].

BALTIMORE CITY REGISTER OF WILLS (Petitions) Henry Sonneborn, 1918, drawer no. 430, box no. 134 [MSA T621-140, 2/37/14/19].

Scanned as msaref 5458-51-4431

See also MSA SC 5339-230-33

Appeal from Baltimore City Circuit Court No. 2

OVERVIEW: The developer constructed about 70 houses that were connected to a sewerage system that it constructed in accordance with plans and specifications prescribed by the city. The developer agreed that as soon as the municipal sewerage system was extended to the property, the private system that served the houses would be conveyed to the city. The city paid one-half of the cost of building the septic tank into which the sewage emptied and periodically inspected the tank. While the degree of the pollution caused by the discharge into the stream from the private system was disputed, it was clear that the discharge had rendered the stream unfit for bathing or watering stock. The developer argued that the city was a necessary party to any suit concerning the private system, and that the increased pollution was caused, at least in part, by discharges from other sources. In reversing a decree that denied injunctive relief, the court held that the pollution contributed from other sources did not lessen the developer's liability. The city was not a necessary party as it was not the operator of the system where it did not own the property or build the pipes and septic tank.

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) Caretti v. Broring Building Co., 1925, October Term, case no. 87, p. 265, MdHR 19,493 [MSA S412-18, 1/67/6/4].

COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions) Caretti v. Broring Building Co., 1925, October Term, case no. 87, MdHR 707-217 [MSA S393-203, 1/65/14/53].

COURT OF APPEALS (Records and Briefs) Caretti v. Broring Building Co., 1925, October Term, case no. 87 [MSA S1733-704, 1/65/5/136].

Trial Court Records:

BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT NO. 2 (Equity Docket A) Caretti v. Broring Building Co., 1925, Volume 34A page 18, Case no. 14709A [MSA T996-34, 0/62/14/5] .

BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT NO. 2 (Equity Papers A) Caretti v. Broring Building Co., 1925, Box 1408 Case no. 14709A [MSA T56-1320, 3/24/3/40] .

Baltimore City Law Department:

Baltimore City Archives, Law Department, Case Files, Robert C & Mary C. Coxen, Louis Caretti, Wm C. & Elizabeth Weber vs. City, Bill for injunction against pollution of Herring Run Sewer, Circuit Court #2, 1925-1926, case no. 43,238, box no. 354 [BRG13-2-17-1, BC/29/9/18].

Related case files:

Baltimore City Archives, Law Department, Case Files, Mayor & City Council vs. Louis Caretti and Lucia Caretti. Condemnation of property, 1925, case no. 45,462, box no. 378 [MSA BRG13-2-7-1, BC/29/10/042].

Baltimore City Archives, Law Department, Case Files,Claim of Louis Carretti. Property on Bowley's Lane Flooded When Road Raised, 1925, case no. 43,201, box no. 353 [MSA BRG13-2-8, BC/29/10/017].
Re: case in BC Court, 1925. File contains only transcript; papers are in case no. 63,529 (unable to locate).

Scanned as msaref 5458-51-4427; also 5458-51-4451, 5458-51-4473.

OVERVIEW: The company was not issued a construction permit due to the lack of provisions for a side yard. The zoning ordinance requiring a side yard was a valid exercise of police power and the property could still be used for residential purposes.

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) R.B. Construction Co. v. Jackson, et al., 1927, January Term, no. 28, p. 319, MdHR 19,493 [MSA S412-18, 1/67/6/4].

COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions) R.B. Construction Co. v. Jackson, et al., 1927, January Term, no. 28, MdHR 707-221 [MSA S393-207, 1/65/14/57].

COURT OF APPEALS (Misc. Papers) R.B. Construction Co. v. Jackson, et al., 1927, January Term, no. 28, MdHR 708-76 [MSA 397-79, 1/65/7/17].

COURT OF APPEALS (Records and Briefs) R.B. Construction Co. v. Jackson, et al., 1927, January Term, no. 28 [MSA S1733-758, 1/65/5/190].

Trial Court Records:

BALTIMORE CITY COURT (Petition Docket) R.B. Construction Co. v. Jackson, et al., 1926, GCL 12, p. 46, "box 1308" [MSA T549-9, 3/34/14/3].

BALTIMORE CITY COURT (Court Papers) R.B. Construction Co. v. Jackson, et al., 1926, "box 1308," box no. 235 [MSA T545-324, 3/32/5/25].

Baltimore City Archives:

R.B. Construction Co. v. City. Zoning Appeal, Lot on Granada Ave, 1926, case no. 47,167, box no. 402 [MSA BRG13-2-5-1, BC/29/11/020].

Related Case:

Baltimore City Archives, Law Department, Case Files, Opinion - Zoning. Upon whom is duty to enforce cessation of operations under a permit pending an adverse appeal. Case of R. B. Construction Company, brick houses on Granada Avenue near Barrington Road, North Forest Park Improvement Association, appellant, 1927, case no. 48884, box no. 427 [MSA BRG13-2-9-1, BC/29/11/045].

Scanned as msaref 5458-51-4464; also 5458-51-4451, 5458-51-4453.

OVERVIEW: A covenant in a deed that conveyed a fee simple estate from the grantor to the vendors was void as an invalid restraint on alienation because it required the grantor's consent to the vendors' ability to sale their real property.

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) Northwest Real Estate Co. v. Serio, 1928, October Term, nos. 49-51, pps. 10-11, MdHR 19,494 [MSA S412-19, 1/67/6/5].

COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions) Northwest Real Estate Co. v. Serio, 1928, October Term, nos. 49-51, MdHR 707-227 [MSA S393-213, 1/65/14/63].

COURT OF APPEALS (Misc. Papers) Northwest Real Estate Co. v. Serio, 1928, October Term, nos. 49-51, MdHR 708-79 [MSA S397-82, 1/65/7/20].

COURT OF APPEALS (Records and Briefs) Northwest Real Estate Co. v. Serio, 1928, October Term, nos. 49-51 [MSA S1733-794, 1/66/1/50].

Trial Court Records:

BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Docket A) Serio v. Northwest Real Estate Co., 1928, 68A, p. 224, case no. A15694 [MSA T55-73, 0/64/4/8].

BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Papers A) Serio v. Northwest Real Estate Co., 1928, case no. A15694, box no. 3634 [MSA T53-4251, 3/9/2/79].

Scanned as msaref 5458-51-4461

OVERVIEW: The plaintiff brought suit against the defendants, several individuals and corporate entities, claiming that the defendants conspired to impoverish the plaintiff financially and to ruin the plaintiff's financial standing, as well as his reputation and credit in the financial world. After the trial court entered judgment in favor of the defendants, the plaintiff appealed. In affirming, the court concluded that plaintiff's claims could not prevail where he failed to allege that the defendants had committed any unlawful acts that resulted in the failure of the plaintiff's company. Plaintiff had no right of action because the acts allegedly perpetrated by the conspirators were not unlawful. It made no difference what the defendants' motives might be in conspiring against the plaintiff if their acts were not unlawful.

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions) Miller v. Preston, 1938, Jan. Term, no. 46, MdHR 8899-4 [MSA S393-238, 1/65/14/87].

COURT OF APPEALS (Records and Briefs) Miller v. Preston, 1938, Jan. Term, no. 46 [MSA S1733-1013, 1/66/3/166].

Trial Court Records:

BALTIMORE CITY SUPERIOR COURT (Cases Instituted) Miller v. Preston, et al., 1933, SCL no. 2, pps. 699, 961, "box 365," MdHR 50,336-133 [MSA C1497-134, 2/16/13/23].

BALTIMORE CITY SUPERIOR COURT (Court Papers) Miller v. Preston, et al., 1933, "box 365," box no. 122 [MSA T51-180, 2/21/6/2].

Scanned as msaref 5458-51-4459

See also MSA SC 5339-230-39

October Term 1948 No. 58
Appeal from Baltimore City Circuit Court No. 2

The Department owned a stadium built on an abandoned brick yard. Seventeen years after it was built, lights were added and night games held. Five years later, the baseball club used the stadium after fire destroyed its facilities. After playing games there for three years, the Department offered a long term agreement for the stadium's use. The court rejected the argument that the issue was moot. The court held that the Department had the authority to permit professional games at the stadium. The court acknowledged that the agreement provided for a substantial increase of professional activities at the stadium. The court explained that the stadium was a non-conforming use, established before the adoption of residential zoning for the area. The court ruled that the Department was entitled to continue the use. The court agreed with the trial court's restrictions on the use of the loudspeaker. The court directed modifications to the lighting system because it was not necessary to project blinding lights into peoples' homes. The court also directed paving of the parking lots to eliminate dust and parking problems. The court added that the police were responsible for keeping order.

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions) Green v. Garrett, 1948, case no. 58, MdHR 11,488-7 [MSA S393-261, 1/66/6/12].

COURT OF APPEALS (Records and Briefs) Green v. Garrett, 1948, case no. 58 [MSA S1733-1248, 1/27/3/45].

COURT OF APPEALS (Misc. Papers) Green v. Garrett, 1948, case no. 58, MdHR 10,903-2 [MSA S397-121, 1/65/8/15].

COURT OF APPEALS (Transcripts) Green v. Garrett, 1948, case no. 58, vols. 1-2, MdHR 10,898-8 [MSA S434-77, 1/67/11/6] .

COURT OF APPEALS (Transcripts) Green v. Garrett, 1948, case no. 58, vols. 3-4, MdHR 10,898-9 [MSA S434-100, 1/67/11/7].

Trial Court Records:

BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT NO. 2 (Equity Docket A, Miscellaneous) 1947, Volume 56A, pps. 721, 745, case no. 29205A [MSA T996-57, 1/40/10/50].

BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT NO. 2 (Equity Papers A, Miscellaneous) 1947, Box 2384 Case No. 29205A [MSA T56-2384, 3/25/1/16].

BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT NO. 2 (Equity Papers A, Miscellaneous) 1947, Box 2406 Case No. 29205A [MSA T56-2385, 3/25/8/41] (photographs)--unable to locate

Baltimore City Archives:

Baltimore City Law Department, case files, Frederick E. Green et. al vs. Mayor and City Council et. al., Stadium Case, Investigation Research and Trial Notes, box no. 794, case no. 81980 [MSA BRG13-2-47-1, BC/30/15/028].

Baltimore City Law Department, case files, Stadium Case, General Correspondence, box no. 794, case no. 81980A [MSA BRG13-2-47-2, BC/30/15/028].

Baltimore City Law Department, case files, Stadium Case, Plans and Stadium Commitee Report, box no. 794, case no. 81980B [MSA BRG13-2-47-3, BC/30/15/028].

Baltimore City Law Department, case files, Stadium Case, Fire Department Detail to Stadium, investigation and research, box no. 794, case no. 81980C [MSA BRG13-2-47-4, BC/30/15/028].

Baltimore City Law Department, case files, Stadium Case, Historical Reference and Research, box no. 794, case no. 81980D [MSA BRG13-2-47-5, BC/30/15/028].

Baltimore City Law Department, case files, Stadium Case, Records and Briefs, box no. 795, case no. 81980E [MSA BRG13-2-47-6, BC/30/15/029]
Part 1 Part 2 Part 3

Scanned as msaref 5458-51-4429; 5458-51-4582/4587

OVERVIEW: Baltimore, Md., Ordinance No. 169 made the streets where the landowners' properties were located into one-way streets. The landowners received notices of increased assessments for their properties, but they did not appeal or request a reduction. The landowners instead sought to enjoin the enforcement of the ordinance and the collection of the taxes because of the alleged fraudulent manner in which the increased assessments were made. The trial court dismissed the landowners' action, and they appealed. The court held that Ordinance No. 169 was an exercise of the City's strictly governmental power over streets, not an invasion of property rights or other personal rights, and was designed to regulate and promote the use of the streets for the primary purpose of streets, that is, for passage. The court determined that such legislation, otherwise valid, could not be pronounced arbitrary, capricious, or fraudulent because it was dictated by the logic of events, to carry out a plan already followed for several years and to make use of a preparatory expenditure already made. The court concluded that there was no indication that the City concealed or withheld any "inside information."

See MSA SC 5339-219-3

See also R. Garland Chissell, et al v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore Papers Collection, MSA SC 5905.

OVERVIEW: The taxpayer filed a lawsuit against defendants, the director, mayor, and city council, to invalidate portions of Baltimore, Md., Ordinance 786 that created the office of Director of Traffic and an administrative regulation promulgated by the director prescribing speed limits. The trial court entered a decree declaring that the ordinance and the director's regulation were valid, with the exception of the provisions in the regulation as to minimum fines and presumptions as to guilt, which were invalid. On appeal, the taxpayers contended that the power to set speed limits was a legislative power, and the mayor and city council could not lawfully delegate it to an administrative official. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court held that the city had no power to regulate the speed of vehicles on any street that was a part of the state or federal highway system or an extension thereof. Therefore, the trial court was to issue an injunction to restrain the director from setting the speed limits on such highways.

See MSA SC 5339-209-15

OVERVIEW: It was neither arbitrary nor capricious for a real estate commission to suspend the licenses of brokers where they violated a statutory requirement that a listing agreement contain a definite termination date without notice from either party.

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Records and Briefs) Bernstein v. Real Estate Commission, 1959, Sept. Term, no. 76 [MSA S1733-1580, 1/27/4/185].

COURT OF APPEALS (Miscellaneous Papers) Bernstein v. Real Estate Commission, 1959, Sept. Term, no. 76, MdHR 16,128-2 [MSA S397-164, 1/65/9/13].

COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions) Bernstein v. Real Estate Commission, 1959, Sept. Term, no. 76, MdHR 16,379-1 [MSA S393-296, 1/66/6/43].

COURT OF APPEALS (U.S. Supreme Court Appeals) Bernstein v. Real Estate Commission, 1959, Sept. Term, no. 76, MdHR 40,332-1 [MSA S450-1, 1/66/7/35].

Trial Court Records:

BALTIMORE CITY COURT (Petition Docket) Bernstein and Shaw v. Real Estate Commission and Allendale-Lyndhurst Improvement Association, 1959, JOR 18, pps. 96, 484, case no. 048380 [MSA T549-15, 3/34/14/9].

BALTIMORE CITY COURT (Petition Docket) Bernstein and Shaw v. Real Estate Commission, Kleiman and Cherry, 1959, JOR, pps. 97, 482, 480, 468, case no. 043581 [MSA T549-15, 3/34/14/9].

BALTIMORE CITY COURT (Court Papers) Bernstein and Shaw v. Real Estate Commission, et al., exhibits, box no. 100 [MSA T545-756, 3/32/2/10].
Note: The court papers for both cases was disposed of by the court in 1984. A large quantity of exhibits were kept, however.
Testimony in the proceedings before Real Estate Commission, Kleinman et al. v. Manning-Shaw Reality Co., 1959.
Record and testimony of the proceedings before the Real Estate Commission, Allendale-Lyndhurst Improvement Association v. Manning-Shaw Reality Co., 1959.
Copies of Newspaper Articles and Copy of National Magazine Articles with Respect to these Cases Appearing in Daily Newspapers in Baltimore City and in National Magazines.
Exhibits filed: checks and chart of Manning-Shaw real estate transactions.
Real estate advertisements from The Baltimore Afro-American, submitted as evidence.

Scanned as msaref 5458-51-4465

OVERVIEW:The city entered into a contract with a private company for the construction of a resource recovery solid waste disposal system. The city entered into the contract without engaging in the competitive bidding process outlined in its charter, and the taxpayers alleged in their complaint that such failure rendered the contract null and void. The trial court determined that there had been no violation of the city's competitive bidding requirements, and it declared the contract valid and binding upon the parties. In affirming the trial court's decision, the court held that in the situation where the company at issue was the only company capable of fulfilling the city's specific needs, competitive bidding was not required by the city's charter.

See MSA SC 5339-230-46

OVERVIEW: The property owner was a chemical processing corporation located near a hazardous waste landfill. It alleged that it was forced to cease its operations at that site because chrome particles from the landfill blew onto its property. The concentration of chrome in the air at the chemical processing plant did not exceed permissible amounts under applicable regulations.

See MSA SC 5339-209-25

OVERVIEW:

LEXIS 125

CASE SUMMARY:

Plaintiffs were adjacent landowners who filed a bill in equity against defendant, Morgan College to enjoin it from using some of its acreage as building lots to for black residents. The Circuit Court for Baltimore County (Maryland) sustained the college's demurrer and dismissed the landowners' bill. The landowners sought review by the Court of Appeals.

The college was chartered under 1890 Md. Laws ch. 326, as amended by 1900 Md. Laws ch. 357 to furnish instruction in the higher branches of learning to members of the black race.

The college raised two principal arguments in its demurrer. First, were the college's threatened acts ultra vires? And, second, did an equity court have jurisdiction to grant relief to those suffering irreparable injury as a result of such ultra vires acts? The issue was whether the landowners, by reason of their adjacent holdings, could attack the college's acquisition of the property as being an act in excess of the corporate powers, which were always limited to the expressed powers contained in the charter and those necessarily incident thereto.

The court held that: (1) the college's charter powers were exceedingly broad; (2) there was no definite limitation either upon the acreage or value of any land that the institution could own, occupy, use, and enjoy; (3) unless the college's intended actions amount to a public nuisance, the trial court had no jurisdiction to grant an injunction; and (4) a residential black neighborhood was not itself a public nuisance.

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) Diggs v. Morgan College, 1918, October Term, case no. 2, p. 163, MdHR 19,492 [MSA S412-17, 1/67/6/3].

COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions) Diggs v. Morgan College, 1918, October Term, case no. 2, MdHR 707-194 [MSA S393-180, 1/65/14/30].

COURT OF APPEALS (Misc. Papers) Diggs v. Morgan College, 1918, October Term, case no. 2, MdHR 708-61 [MSA S397-64, 1/65/7/2].

COURT OF APPEALS (Records and Briefs) Diggs v. Morgan College, 1918, October Term, case no. 2
Note: No Records and briefs; not listed in index or in volume. Letters in Misc. Papers indicate that both parties prepared and likely submitted briefs.

Trial Court Records:

BALTIMORE COUNTRY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Docket) Diggs v. Morgan College, 1917, WPC 23, case no. 14377, p. 59, MdHR 20,227-23 [MSA C326-23, 2/49/8/22].

BALTIMORE COUNTRY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Papers) Diggs v. Morgan College, 1917, case no. 14377, box no. 905 [MSA T696-239, 0/35/10/21].

Scanned as msaref 5458-51-4467