| The Northern Central Railway Company v. The United Railways and Electric Company, 105 Md. 345
Case filed 22 May 1905 in the Baltimore City Superior Court. First four counts of the six count declaration dropped on 25 June 1906. Judgment on demurrer in favor of the Defendant 9 October
1906. Plaintiff filed Order for Appeal 24 November 1906. Briefs filed with Appeals Court 7 January 1907. Judgment reversed with costs to the appellant and new trial awarded 3 April 1907. Notice sent
to Baltimore City Superior Court 16 April 1907 with noticed received 18 April 1907. 6 March 1908 agreed and settled with defendant to pay costs. Order of council filed.
Trial Court Records:
BALTIMORE CITY SUPERIOR
COURT (Cases Instituted) Northern Central R.R. v. U.R. & E., 1905, Volume RO No. 1 pp. 314 and 353, “Box 1481,” MdHR 50,336-64 [MSA C1497-65, 2/16/12/2]
Unable to locate court papers - Guide does not list 1481 in series description.
Appellate Court Records:
COURT OF APPEALS (Docket)
Northern Central R.R. v. U.R. & E., January Term 1907 No. 44, Volume TP 1 p. 336, MdHR 9204 [MSA S412-15, 1/67/6/1]
COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) Northern
Central R.R. v. U.R. & E., April Term 1907 No. 12, Volume TP 1 p. 355, MdHR 9204 [MSA S412-15, 1/67/6/1]
COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions)
Northern Central R.R. v. U.R. & E., April Term 1907 No. 12, MdHR 707-158 [MSA S393-144, 1/65/13/90]
COURT OF APPEALS (Records and
Briefs) Northern Central R.R. v. U.R. & E., January Term 1907 No. 37 [MSA S1733- 283, 1/65/2/131]
Scanned as msaref sc 5458-51-3486
OVERVIEW:
The railroad company was granted a charter to operate its railroad in
the city. The ordinance granting the charter provided that the
railroad company was responsible for the cost of maintaining two
bridges. The railway company was also granted a charter to operate in
the city. By the ordinances granting authority to the railway
company, the railway company was given the legal obligation to
maintain the "streets" covered by its tracks. The railroad
company repaired two bridges that were covered by the ordinances. The
railroad company then sought a proportionate contribution from the
railway company, but the railway company refused to pay for the
repairs. In reversing the trial court's order that had sustained the
railway company's demurrer to one count of the railroad company's
declaration, the court ruled that the bridges were part of the
"streets" that the railway company was obligated to repair.
The court also ruled that government contractors that neglected to
perform their promised obligations were liable to private actions
brought by parties who were injured by the neglect. Both the railroad
company and the railway company were liable for the cost of the
repairs.
OUTCOME: The court reversed the trial court's
judgment and remanded for retrial.
|
