Maryland State Archives

Bill of Complaint filed 6 October 1891 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, in Equity, case no. 6653. Bill of complaint amended by leave of the court and refiled on 8 October 1891. Motion for preliminary injunction filed 8 October 1891. Order of the Court refusing injunction filed 16 October 1891; order for appeal filed by plaintiff filed 16 October 1891. Appellant’s brief filed 9 November; brief for appellees filed 10 November 1891. Order of the Court of Appeals reversing and remanding the order of the Circuit Court filed 17 February 1892. Opinions issued by Judges Byran and Irving filed 17 February 1891.

Trial Court Records:

BALTIMORE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Docket) Bonaparte v. The Baltimore, Hampden, and Lake Roland Railroad Company, and others, 1891, JWS 12, pp. 222, 289, “case no. 6653,” MdHR 20,223-3 [MSA C326-12, 2/49/8/11]

BALTIMORE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Papers) Bonaparte v. The Baltimore, Hampden, and Lake Roland Railroad Company, and others, 1891, “case no. 6653,” box no. 777 [MSA T696-107, 0/35/7/13]

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket), Bonaparte v. The Baltimore, Hampden, and Lake Roland Railroad Company, and others, 1892, JFF 1, January Term, no. 40, MdHR 639 [MSA S412-13, 1/66/14/44]

COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions) Bonaparte v. The Baltimore, Hampden, and Lake Roland Railroad Company, and others, 1892, January Term, no. 40, MdHR 707-111 [MSA S393-97, 1/65/13/43]

COURT OF APPEALS (Records and Briefs) Bonaparte v. The Baltimore, Hampden, and Lake Roland Railroad Company, and others, 1891, October Term, no. 70 [MSA S1733-33, 1/65/1/33]

COURT OF APPEALS (Misc. Papers) Searched but none found

Scanned as msaref sc 5458-51-3475

Case filed 18 May 1904 in the BC Superior Court. Some sort of maneuvering 17-27 June 1904(??). Trial held 24-25 January 1906. Jury found for plaintiffs and awarded $5.00. Order for appeal filed 22 March 1906; bill of exceptions filed 4 April 1906.
Judgement reversed; remanded for new trial, 16 November 1906. New trial in Superior Court, 4 June 1907.
Verdict (sealed) in favor of plaintiff for $2564.42, 10 June. Judgement on verdict absolute, 12 June. Time to appeal case extended three times. Case settled, judgement satisfied 7 February 1908.

Trial Court Records:

BALTIMORE CITY SUPERIOR COURT (Cases Instituted) Smith v. Jewell, 1904, RO No. 1, pp. 263, 299, "Box 1441," MdHR 50,336-62 [MSA C1497-63, 2/16/11/48]

BALTIMORE CITY SUPERIOR COURT (Civil Papers) Smith v. Jewell, 1904, "Box 1441," box no. 39 [MSA T583-247, 2/25/7/15]

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) Smith v. Jewell, 1906, TP 1, April Term, no. 74, MdHR 9204 [MSA S421-15, 1/67/6/1]

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) Smith v. Jewell, 1906, TP 1, October Term, no. 25, MdHR 9204 [MSA S421-15, 1/67/6/1]

COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions) Smith v. Jewell, 1906, October Term, no. 25, MdHR 707-156 [MSA S393-142, 1/65/13/88]

COURT OF APPEALS (Records and Briefs) Smith v. Jewell, 1906, October Term, no. 35 [MSA S1733-274, 1/65/2/122]

Scanned as msaref sc 5458-51-3428, 3429, 3430, 3431, 3432

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.

Indictment filed, 12 December 1906: four counts of selling alcohol on Sunday. Club filed special plea, claiming law didn't apply to social clubs, and Judge Harlan agreed. State appealed, 7 January 1907.

Court of Appeals overruled that decision and ordered a new trial, 26 April 1907.

Nol pros granted by Gov. Warfield upon payment of costs, and entered by State's Attorney, 4 June 1907. Pardon granted at urging of "many clubs, citizens and attorneys of Baltimore."

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) State v. Maryland Club, 1907, April Term, case no. 35, LIber TP 1, p. 358, MdHR 9204 [MSA S412-15, 1/67/6/1]

COURT OF APPEALS (Records and Briefs) State v. Maryland Club, 1906, April Term, no. 35.

COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions) State v. Maryland Club, 1907, April Term, case no. 35, MdHR 707-158 [MSA S393-144, 1/65/13/90]

Trial Court Records:

BALTIMORE CITY CRIMINAL COURT (Criminal Docket) State v. Maryland Club, 1906, case no. 2206, pps. 368; 468, MdHR 50,334-115 [MSA C1849-115, 3/30/3/32]

BALTIMORE CITY CRIMINAL COURT (Criminal Papers) State v. Maryland Club, 1906, case no. 2206, box no. 114 [MSA T495-123, HF/2/33/72]

Other Records:

SECRETARY OF STATE (Pardon Docket) Maryland Club, 1907, p. 323, case no. 4085, MdHR 7949 [MSA S1110-7, 2/27/1/12]

Scanned as msaref sc 5458-51-3475

Suit filed in Baltimore County Circuit Court on 27 June 1916, alleging that light and smoke from defendant's factory created a nuisance. Court directed verdict for defendant. Court of Appeals overturned trial court, and ordered new trial.

No new trial held; case dismissed by order of plaintiff, defendant to pay costs, 4 June 1918.

Trial Court Records:

BALTIMORE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT (Civil Docket) Jackson v. Shawinigan Electro Products, 1916, case no. 11236, Liber WPC 25, pps. 236, 388, MdHR 20,222-24 [MSA C358-24 2/48/14/24]

BALTIMORE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT (Civil Papers) Jackson v. Shawinigan Electro Products, 1916, case no. 11236, box 297 [MSA T697-20, 2/54/14/21]

Appeals Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) Jackson v. Shawinigan Electro Products, 1917, October Term, no. 90, Liber CCM 2, p. 136, MdHR 19,492 [MSA S415-17, 1/67/6/3]

COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions) Jackson v. Shawinigan Electro Products, 1917, October Term, no. 90, MdHR 707-192 [MSA S393-178, 1/65/14/28]

COURT OF APPEALS (Records and Briefs) Jackson v. Shawinigan Electro Products, 1917, October Term, no. 90 [MSA S1733-501, 1/65/4/71]

Scanned as msaref 5458-51-3502

Case filed 9 October 1919 in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City. Injunction denied 9 October 1919 by Judge James P. Gorter. Order for appeal filed 9 October 1919. Judgement reversed; remanded to the Circuit Court to issue injunction and defendant ordered to pay costs, mandate filed 23 October 1919 with per curium opinion. Injunction issued 31 October 1919. Opinion filed by Court of Appeals 21, November 1919. Defendant paid costs 4 December 1919.

Trial Court Records:

BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Docket A, Misc.) 1919, Williams et al. v. Broening et al. 59A, pp. 560, "A No. 9944” [MSA T55-59, 3/4/1/42]

BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Papers A, Misc.) 1919, Williams et al. v. Broening et al. Box No. 3161, “A No. 9944” [MSA T53-3764, 3/8/11/86]

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) 1919, Williams et al. v. Broening et al. CCM 2, i, pp. 214, October Term, no. 90, MdHR 19, 492 [MSA S412-17, 1/67/6/3]

COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions) 1919, Williams et al. v. Broening et al. October Term, no. 90, MdHR 707-197 [MSA S393-183, 1/65/14/33]

COURT OF APPEALS (Records and Briefs) Searched but not found; it appears no briefs were filed

Related Case:

BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Papers A) Jones v. Broening, 1919, case no. A9945, box 3161 [MSA T53-3764, 3/8/11/86]

COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions) Jones v. Broening, 1919, October Term, no. 91, MdHR 707-197 [MSA S393-183, 1/65/14/33]

COURT OF APPEALS (Misc. Papers) Jones v. Broening and Willimas v. Broening, 1919, October Term, nos. 90-91, MdHR 708-63 [MSA S397-66, 1/65/7/4]

Scanned as msaref 5458-51-3503

CASE SUMMARY

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant opponents challenged a judgment by the Circuit Court of Baltimore City (Maryland), which refused to grant an injunction against appellees, a mayor and city council. The suit controversy concerned a proposed amendment to the city's charter, which related to the taxation of realty and personalty in a territory annexed to the city by 1888 Md. Laws 98 (Act).

OVERVIEW: The amendment proposed to replace Baltimore City, Md., Charter, art. 1, § 4 with a clause subjecting all territory annexed under the Act to the same levy, taxation, and assessment as other property in the city. The opponents alleged that the Charter had never been validly adopted because it was not published as required by Md. Const. art. XI-A and that the proposed measure exceeded the amendment power conferred by Md. Const. art. XI-A, § 5, even if the Charter was validly adopted. The held that the constitutional publishing requirement was no so mandatory as to subject the Charter to attack long after its adoption based on the extent to which the newspapers in which it was circulated. The court found substantial compliance with the publishing requirement and found that the Charter was submitted to the city's qualified voters. As to the power to adopt the amendment, however, the court held that the city's authority was limited by Baltimore City, Md., Charter, art. 4, § 6, 28-A and -B, which provided that no authority was given to impose taxes on any property that was then or later became exempt.

OUTCOME: The court reversed the challenged order and remanded the case.

Case filed 10 February 1928 in the Baltimore City Circuit Court, No. 2. Trial held 10 February 1928. Douty questioning legality of Mayor accepting certificates of indebtedness when interest rate was not defined on the ballot description which Baltimore city citizens approved. Judge decreed in favor of the defendants, Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, because they had effectively submitted to voters enough information on the loan. Order to appeal filed the same day. Opinion given by Judge Sloan on 11 April 1928 and dissent by Judge Parke. Court of Appeals maintained Circuit Court, No. 2 decision and decreed in favor of Mayor and City Council of Baltimore on 18 April 1928.

10 Feb 1928
Bill of Complaint, Exhibit Act of Assembly, Exhibit Bid, Exhibit Circular, Exhibit Ordinance, Judges’ Decree in favor of Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Order to Appeal
16 April 1928
Court of Appeals Mandate

Trial Court Records:

BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT, NO.2 (Equity Docket A, Miscellaneous) 1928 Douty v. Mayor, 37A, No. 16029-A [MSA T996-37, 0/62/14/8]

BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT, NO. 2 (Equity Papers A, Miscellaneous) 1928 Douty v. Mayor, Box no. 1525, No. 16029-A [MSA T56-1441, 3/24/4/61]

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) Douty v. Mayor, 1928, January Term, No. 66 [MSA S412-19, 1/67/6/5]

COURT OF APPEALS (Opinion) Douty v. Mayor, 1928, January Term, 11 April, No. 66 [MSA S393-211, 1/65/14/61]

COURT OF APPEALS (Records and Briefs) Douty v. Mayor, 1928, January Term, No. 66 [MSA S1733-779, 1/65/5/211]

Scanned as msaref 5458-51-3504

Charles M. Ness, Joshua Levering, Reverend Leonard B. Smith, Charles H. Gundersdorff, Reverend DeWitt M. Benham, Milton W. Gatch, and Reverend William W. Davis, constituting a Committee of the Lord’s Day Alliance, a body corporate, and as individuals and taxpayers of the City of Baltimore and State of Maryland
v.
Robert B. Ennis, Bernard J. Flynn, and Alexander McK. Montell, constituting the Board of Supervisors of Election of Baltimore City

Petition for mandamus filed 29 February 1932 in Baltimore City Superior Court. Answer to mandamus filed 4 March 1932. Replication, exhibits, and demurrer filed 8 March 1932. Non-jury trial held 10-12 March 1932, Judge Eugene O’Dunne presiding. Order of the court dismissing petition for mandamus issued 12 March 1932. Appeal to the Court of Appeals of Maryland filed 14 March 1932. Decision affirming the order of the trial court handed down 12 April 1932, with cost to the appellees; Per Curiam filed 12 April 1932 Opinion of the court issued by Chief Justice Carroll T. Bond on 27 April 1932.

Trial Court Records:

BALTIMORE CITY SUPERIOR COURT (Cases Instituted) Ness, et al., etc. v. Ennis, et al., etc., 1932, No. 1-500, pp. 318, “2875,” MdHR 50,336-129 [MSA C1497-130, 2/16/13/19]

BALTIMORE CITY SUPERIOR COURT (Court Papers) Ness, et al., etc. v. Ennis, et al., etc., 1932, “2875,” box no. 256 [MSA T51-316, 2/21/9/16]

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket), Ness, et al., etc. v. Ennis, et al., etc., 1928-1932, J.A.Y., i, April Term 1932, no. 35, MdHR 19,494 [MSA S412-19, 1/67/6/5]

COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions), Ness, et al., etc. v. Ennis, et al., etc., 1932, April Term no. 35, MdHR 707-236 [MSA S393-222, 1/65/14/72]

COURT OF APPEALS (Records and Briefs), Ness, et al., etc. v. Ennis, et al., etc., 1932, April Term no. 35 [MSA S1733-878, 1/66/2/58]

Other Records:

Baltimore City Law Department case file no. 58,886

Scanned as msaref 5458-51-3505

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant citizens challenged an order of the Superior Court of Baltimore City (Maryland), which dismissed their petition for mandamus against appellees, members of the Board of Supervisors of Elections of Baltimore City, to prevent the supervisors from proceeding with the preparation of ballots for the vote on an ordinance enacted under the authority of 1931 Md. Laws ch. 287, Md. Ann. Code art. 27, §§ 483, 484, 485.

OVERVIEW: The Maryland General Assembly enacted 1931 Md. Laws ch. 287, Md. Ann. Code art. 27, §§ 483, 484, 485, which permitted the city to enact its own ordinance governing Sunday observance, subject to a local vote at a general or special election. The city enacted such an ordinance and directed a special election to be held on the same day as the primary elections in the state. The citizens sought to prevent the preparation of ballots and the conduct of this election. The court affirmed the order dismissing their petition for mandamus. The court found that nothing in the law restricted the city from holding this election at the same time as a primary election. The court determined that the law and the ordinance did not violate the city's charter under the Home Rule Amendment to the Maryland Constitution because the city already had the power to regulate Sunday observances. The law only withdrew any conflict between city ordinance and state law. The court held that this was a proper local referendum on a local law, as opposed to a general law. Finally, the court concluded that the ordinance was not unconstitutionally arbitrary or discriminatory.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the order dismissing the petition

Initial case brought against the Bank Commissioner of Maryland, John J. Ghingher, and the Baltimore Trust Company, due to the enactment of the Emergency Banking Act of 1933. The plaintiffs argued that certain sections of this act were “unconstitutional” per the U.S. Constitution and the Maryland Constitution. The Mayor and City Council joined the suit as a party interested in the outcome of the case. The verdict favored the plaintiffs in part and the defendants in part.

Three cases from one.
Filed in Baltimore City Circuit Court No. 2, Argued and Advanced April Term 1933 but filed in October Term 1933, under Craven P. Pearson and Horace E. Wennagle, Complainants v. John J. Ghingher, Bank Commissioner of Maryland, and The Baltimore Trust Company (a banking institution incorporated under the laws of Maryland), Defendants. From this case came 3 appeals. Filed May 4, 1933, in the Court of Appeals of Maryland: No. 14, John J. Ghingher, Receiver of the Chesapeake Bank of Baltimore vs. Craven P. Pearson et al.; No. 15, Mayor and City Council of Baltimore vs. Craven P. Pearson et al.; and No. 16, Craven P. Pearson et al. v. John J. Ghingher, Bank Commissioner of Maryland, et al. Cases 14 and 15 were affirmed and No. 16 reserved for reargument.

Trial Court Records:

BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT NO. 2 (Equity Docket A, Miscellaneous) Pearson and Wennagle v. John J. Ghingher and The Baltimore Trust Company, October Term 1933, case No. 18961A, Volume 42A pp 100-101 and 117 [MSA T996-42, 0/62/14/13]

BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT NO. 2 (Equity Papers A, Miscellaneous) Pearson et al. v. Ghingher et al., 1933, Box 1803 Case No. 18961 A [MSA T56-1752, 3/24/8/43]

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) Ghingher v. Pearson, Mayor and City Council v. Pearson, and Pearson v. Ghingher, October Term 1933 Nos. 14, 15, and 16, Volume JAY pp. 3-4, MdHR 19,494 [MSA S412-19 1/67/6/5]

COURT OF APPEALS (Miscellaneous Papers) Ghingher v. Pearson, October Term 1933 No. 14, MdHR 708-87, [MSA S397-90 1/65/7/28]

COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions) Ghingher v. Pearson, Mayor and City Council v. Pearson, and Pearson v. Ghingher, October Term 1933 Nos. 14, 15, and 16, MdHR 707-239, [MSA S393-225 1/65/14/75]

COURT OF APPEALS (Records and Briefs) Ghingher v. Pearson, Mayor and City Council v. Pearson, and Pearson v. Ghingher, October Term 1933 Nos. 14, 15, and 16, [MSA S1733-902 1/66/2/82]

Other Records:

Baltimore City Law Department case files no. 60,660 and 60,737 - BCA RG 13

Scanned as msaref 5458-51-3506

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendants, receiver, mayor, and city council, and plaintiff depositors appealed a decree from the Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City (Maryland), praying the court to declare certain provisions of the Emergency Banking Act to be unconstitutional and seeking to enjoin the withdrawal of funds from banking institutions under the challenged provisions.

OVERVIEW: In response to the exigencies of the banking crisis, the state passed the Act to place the business of banking institutions under control by restricting withdrawals from deposits and providing a plan for rehabilitation of certain institutions. Specified deposits of public money were exempted from the Act's restrictions on withdrawals. In an action by the depositors whose rights were deferred under the Act, the court, after reargument, affirmed in part and reversed in part the decree. The exemption of one of a class of depositors from a common contractual risk increased by the degree of the discrimination the burden of the others of the class. The inequality occasioned by giving a priority of payment to one of a class of depositors was an impairment of the right to an equality of payment on the part of the deferred depositors of the class, and of those whose rights of priority or of property were impaired. The preference created for the benefit of the state by the act impaired the obligations of contracts and deprived depositors of their property rights without due process of law and, therefore, was invalid.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decree.

Lexis Opinion
Westlaw Opinion

Trial Court Records:

BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT NO. 2 (Equity Docket A, Miscellaneous) 1937, Volume 46A pp. 202, 545, and 647 [MSA T 996-46, 0/62/14/17]

BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT NO. 2 (Equity Papers A, Miscellaneous) 1937, Box 1949 File No. 22240A [MSA T56-1928, 3/24/9/93]

BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT NO. 2 (Equity Papers A, Miscellaneous) 1937, Box 1970 File No. 22628A [MSA T56-1951, 3/24/10/18]

Appellate Court Records:

First Appellate Case:

No COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) for this time period at MSA.

COURT OF APPEALS (Records and Briefs) October Term 1937 No. 9 [MSA S1733-995, 1/66/3/148]

No COURT OF APPEALS (Miscellaneous Papers) for this case.

COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions) October Term 1937 No. 9 [MSA S393-237, 1/65/14/86]

Second Appellate Case:

Jackson v. Morris, 173 Md. 579, 195 A. 576 (1937).
Lexis Opinion

No COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) for this time period at MSA.

COURT OF APPEALS (Records and Briefs) Jackson v. Norris, January Term 1938 Nos. 3 & 4 [MSA S1733-1008, 1/66/3/161]

No COURT OF APPEALS (Miscellaneous Papers) for this case.

COURT OF APPEALS (Opinion) Jackson v. Norris, January Term 1938 Nos. 3 & 4 [MSA S393-238, 1/65/14/87]

Baltimore City Law Department:

Note this case appears twice in the Baltimore City Law Department docket covering 1934-1938. File numbers associated are: 67007 and 67728.

William S. Norris v. City, Bill to Declare Act and Ordinance Providing for Voting Machines Void, Box 626 File No. 67007 (BCA RG 13-2-67007)

William S. Norris v. City, Bill to Restrain the City from Letting Contract to the Automatic Voting Machine Co., Box 633 File No. 67728 (BCA RG 13-2-67728)

Hattie B. Daly v. City, Bill to Declare Contract for Voting Machines Void, Box 622 File No. 67780 (BCA RG 13-2-67780)

Hattie Daly and William Norris v. Mayor and City Council, Voting Machines, Box 637 File No. 68164A (BCA RG 13-2-68164A)

Opinion - Power of the voting machine board to use loan funds to provide a storage place for voting machines, Box 639 File No. 68402 (BCA RG 13-2-68402)

General correspondence on voting machine cases, contract, minutes of the board, specifications, etc., Box 640 File No. 68404 (BCA RG 13-2-68404)

See ecpclio sc5339-143-6

Judge William C. Coleman, U.S. District Court of Maryland, refused to consider applications for naturalization from five residents, all refuges from Nazi Germany. At citizenship hearing held 13-14 June 1944, Judge Coleman would not pass on the naturalization petitions, and the petitioners sued for a writ on mandamus ordering him to do so. Court ruled on 10 November 1944, ordering Judge Coleman to issue a ruling.

Schwab residence, 3808 Glen Ave., Baltimore, MD District 5, Ward 27, placed on 1935 base map of Baltimore City

No federal court records at MSA.

Petition of Simon Schwab from the Federal Records

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Petitioner aliens applied for a writ of mandamus to require respondent, a district court judge from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, to pass upon petitioners' requests for naturalization.

OVERVIEW: Petitioner aliens, German natives, sought United States citizenship. During preliminary hearings, held pursuant to § 333 of the Nationality Act of 1940, 8 U.S.C.S. § 733, evidence established that petitioners complied with all requirements for admission to citizenship. Petitioner United States Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization recommended petitioners' naturalization. Respondent, a district court judge, refused to pass upon petitioners' requests for naturalization and continued the hearings based on respondent's policy of refusing, during World War II, to grant citizenship to German enemy aliens that left Germany after the inception of the Nazi regime. The court held that petitioners had a statutory right to have their petitions passed upon so that petitioners could appeal from an adverse ruling. Furthermore, the court held that respondent had no power to add requirements to the provisions for enemy aliens under 8 U.S.C.S. §§ 726(a) and (b). The court granted the petition for a writ of mandamus, but withheld issuance in order to allow respondent to pass on the petitions.

OUTCOME: The court granted the petition for writ of mandamus requiring respondent to pass upon petitioners' requests for naturalization because respondent had no power to impose additional requirements upon the naturalization of enemy aliens and petitioners had a right to receive a determination on their petitions so that they could appeal the adverse ruling.

Case filed on 16 June 1947 in Baltimore City Circuit Court. Mayor and City Council joined as defendants on behalf of the Directors of the Baltimore Transit Company on 27 June 1947. Warren sued the Directors of Baltimore Transit Company for substituting motor buses for rail-based trolley cars and changing from a holding company to a wholly owned subsidiary without first gaining shareholder approval. Court dismissed Bill of Complaint on 10 July 1947; plaintiffs ordered for appeal on 6 August 1947. Court of Appeals heard case 22 September 1947 and reaffirmed decree of Circuit Court dismissing case.

Trial Court Records:

BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Docket A, Miscellaneous) Warren v. Fitzgerald, et al., 1947, 87A, pp. 306, 336, no. A29809 ½ [MSA T55-94, 1/20/11/49]

BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Papers A, Miscellaneous) Warren v. Fitzgerald, et al., 1947, box no. 1625, no. A29809 ½ [MSA T53-5214, 3/9/13/7]
Note: Large file

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Records and Briefs) Warren v. Fitzgerald, et al., 1947, October Term, no. 108 [MSA S1733-1226, 1/27/3/23]

COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions) Warren v. Fitzgerald, et al., 1947, October Term, no. 108, MDHR 11, 488-7 [MSA S393-261, 1/66/6/12]

COURT OF APPEALS (Miscellaneous Papers) Warren v. Fitzgerald, et al., 1947, October Term, no. 108, MDHR 10, 205-2 [MSA S397-117, 1/65/8/11]

COURT OF APPEALS (Transcript) Warren v. Fitzgerald, 1947, October Term, no. 108, vol. 1-2, MDHR 9974-15 [MSA S434-75, 1/67/10/28]
Note: Large file

Other Records:

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (Docket) In the Matter of the Baltimore Transit Company's petition for approval to convert certain of its rail lines to free wheel operation and to reroute certain of its rail lines, vol. 11, case no. 4789 [MSA T366-11, OR/23/8/100]

No PSC case files from this time period at MSA.

Scanned as msaref 5458-51-3508

Grammer v. State, 203 Md. 200, 100 A.2d 257 (1953).
Lexis Opinion

Grammer v. Maryland, 347 U.S. 938, 74 S. Ct. 634, 98 L. Ed. 1088 (1954). - writ of cert denied
Lexis Opinion

Trial Court records:

BALTIMORE CITY CRIMINAL COURT (Criminal Docket) State v. George Edward Grammer, September Term 1952 Indictment No. 3544, pp. 7, 465 and 445. [MSA C1849-176, 3/30/6/1]

BALTIMORE CITY CRIMINAL COURT (Transcripts) George E. Grammer, 1952, Box 1 No. 3544 [MSA T 496-67, 0/2/2/39]

Interrogation of G. Edward Grammer, 8/30/52

Court Transcript, Part I: Sept. 16, Oct. 14, 1952, p. 1-205
Court Transcript, Part II: Oct. 15, 1952, p. 205-450
Court Transcript, Part III: Oct. 16, 1952, p. 451-667
Court Transcript, Part IV: Oct. 17, 1952, p. 668-862
Court Transcript, Part V: Oct. 18, 1952, p. 863-951
Court Transcript, Part VI: Oct. 20, 1952, p. 952-1145
Court Transcript, Part VII: Oct. 21 and 23, 1952, p. 1146-1196

State's Exhibits
Defendant's Exhibits

Appeallate material
Includes opinion of Supreme Bench, confession, and other information

Note: No additional records for this case BALTIMORE CITY CRIMINAL COURT (Criminal Papers) MSA T 495

Supreme Bench records:

Minutes and Supreme Bench opinion rejecting Grammer's appeal

Appellate records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Records and Briefs) Grammer v. State, October Term 1953 No. 18 [MSA S1733-1382, 1/27/3/179]

COURT OF APPEALS (Miscellaneous Papers) Grammer v. State, October Term 1953 No. 18 [MSA S397-136, 1/65/8/30]

COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions) Grammer v. State, October Term 1953 No. 18 [MSA S393-279, 1/66/6/27]

COURT OF APPEALS (U.S. Supreme Court Appeals) Grammer v. State, October Term 1953 No. 18 [MSA S450-1, 1/66/7/35]

Other records:

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH DIVISION OF VITAL RECORDS AND STATISTICS (Death Record, Counties) Dorothy M. Grammer, 20 August 1952, Baltimore County [MSA S1268-302, 2/15/1/46]

BALTIMORE CITY HEALTH DEPARTMENT BUREAU OF VITAL STATISTICS (Death Record) George E. Grammer, 11 June 1954, Certificate No. 5022 [MSA C2108-107, 2/19/1/111]

References from the Pratt vertical file and other research notes courtesy of Bill Sleeman, University of Maryland School of Law.

Note: This case is included in the index to the Attorney General's Case Papers as file number 6800-1953. Warehouse searched the following box, but did not locate this file.

ATTORNEY GENERAL
(Case File)
MSA T2261
Dates: n.d.
Box No.: 346
Description: 6784-6801
Accession No.: 74W8
MSA No.: T2261-159
Location: HF/5/12/61

Biographies:

Judge Herman M. Moser, MSA SC 3520-14357

Anselm Sodaro, Baltimore City State's Attorney, MSA SC 3520-13926

J. Harold Grady, Assistant Baltimore City State's Attorney, MSA SC 3520-12488

Anthony Federico, Grammer's defense attorney before the Baltimore City Criminal Court
"Anthony Federico, 87, gained fame as lawyer for killer in 1952 case." The Sun, 9 March 2001.

Theodore and Joseph Sherbow, and Edward F. Shea were Grammer's appellant counsel.

See ecpclio sc5339-62-94

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant appealed the decision of the Criminal Court of Baltimore City (Maryland), which denied his motion for a new trial after convicting him for first degree murder. Defendant argued that pretrial publicity had prevented him from getting an impartial jury or a fair trial, that he was forced to have a bench trial, that his confessions were not voluntary, and that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.

OVERVIEW: Defendant was charged with the murder of his wife, whom he hit with an iron pipe, placed in the driver's seat of a car, and propelled into traffic. The case was highly publicized. Defense counsel requested a bench trial. The criminal court convicted defendant of first degree murder. On appeal, defendant argued that the pretrial publicity had deprived him of the right to a trial by an impartial jury. The court disagreed. The State's announcement of the murder charge was proper and necessary. The press discussed the same elements of the crime that were proved in the trial. The court explained that a jury could not be presumed to be unbiased. Defendant was required to show the bias of individual jurors. Yet defendant neither exercised his right to voir dire nor filed a motion for removal. Moreover, defendant's decision to be tried before a judge was not a waiver of the right to a jury; rather, it was defendant's election of whom he believed to be the most favorable factfinder. The court found that defendant's oral and written confessions were voluntary. The evidence was such that the criminal court could have been convinced of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court affirmed.

OUTCOME: The court held that the pretrial publicity had not precluded defendant's right to a trial by an impartial jury, that he had elected a bench trial, that his confessions were voluntary, and that the evidence was sufficient to support his first degree murder conviction. The court affirmed.

U.S. v. Frankfeld, et al., was filed on 24 October 1951 as case no. 22209. Attorney Maurice Braverman was convicted on 1 April 1952 in U.S. District Court for District of Maryland of conspiring to violate the provisions of Section 2 of the Smith Act (advocating the overthrow of the United States government by force and violence) by acting as the leader of a secret white-collar Communist association. Fined $1,000 and sentenced to three years in prison. On 3 March 1955, the Bar Association of Baltimore filed a petition to disbar Braverman and Supreme Bench of Baltimore City heard case on 20 June 1955. 28 June 1955 Supreme Bench unanimously decided to disbar Braverman. He appealed decision and was granted leave to file a brief as amicus curiae on 7 December 1955. His case was heard and the Court affirmed the order of the Supreme Bench with costs on 13 March 1956. Braverman's petition for certiorari filed in the Supreme Court of United States on 11 June 1956 and denied 8 October 1956.

Trial Court Records:

SPECIAL COLLECTIONS (Baltimore City Circuit Court/Baltimore Courthouse and Law Museum Foundation Collection of papers relating to the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City) Disbarment of Maurice Braverman, 1955, No.127 [MSA SC 5063-2-127, 00/27/14/17]

SPECIAL COLLECTIONS (Baltimore City Circuit Court/Baltimore Courthouse and Law Museum Foundation Collection of papers relating to the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City) Disbarment of Maurice Braverman, Minutes of the Supreme Bench, Volume XVI pp. 41-42, 76-77, 92-93, Box no. 3 [MSA SC 5603-5-18, 00/47/5/16]

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Records and Briefs) Braverman v. Bar Association, October Term 1955, No. 108 [MSA S1733-1447, 1/27/4/52]

COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions) Braverman v. Bar Association, October Term 1955 No. 108, MdHR 15,750-5 [MSA S393-286, 1/66/6/33]

COURT OF APPEALS (Miscellaneous Papers) Braverman v. Bar Association, October Term 1955 No. 108, MdHR 13,707-2 [MSA S397-144, 1/65/8/38]

COURT OF APPEALS (U.S. Supreme Court Appeals) Braverman v. Bar Association, October Term 1956 No. 151, MdHR 40,332-1 [MSA S450-1, 1/66/7/35]

Subversive Activities Records:

ATTORNEY GENERAL (Subversive Activities Files) United States v. Frankfeld, et al., 1951, no. 2209, Box no. 2 files no. 56, 79 and 107, MdHR 20,371-2 [MSA S104-1, 2/71/1/16]

1. Indictment, Forms of Under Subversive Activities: 3 copies of U.S. v. Frankfeld, et al., Indictment; Daily Record 10/24/1951 Article
2. Smith Act Trials: Newspaper records of Braverman’s case
3. Annual Reports of Special Assistant to Attorney General in Charge of Subversive Activities: 1952 Description of Baltimore ‘6’ Trial; 1954 Disbarment Procedure for suspected lawyers

ATTORNEY GENERAL (Subversive Activities Files) United States v. Frankfeld, et al., 1952, no. 22322, MdHR 20,371-5 [MSA S104-10, 2/71/1/14]

1. 12 volume transcript of U.S. v. Frankfeld, et al. Transcript 2500 pages total; scanned in 20 parts, two of which seem to be missing.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9
Part 10
Part 11
Part 12
Part 13
Part 14
Part 15
Part 16
Part 17
Part 18
Part 19
Part 20

Baltimore City Council Un-American Activities Committee meeting transcript

Other related material from Subversive Activities records

Secondary Sources:

Pederson, Vernon L. The Communist Party in Maryland 1919-57. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2001. pp. 75-80 on U.S. v. Frankfeld, et al. [Accession no. L20030103, Call no. 1050 P7, Mezzanine]

Scanned as msaref 5458-51-3509

CASE SUMMARY

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant attorney challenged an order from the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City (Maryland), which disbarred the attorney from the practice of law.

OVERVIEW: The attorney was convicted of conspiracy to violate § 2 of the Smith Act, for advocating the overthrow of the United States government by force and violence, and he was sentenced to three years imprisonment. The Executive Committee of the Bar Association sought to initiate disciplinary action against the attorney. The attorney argued that the imposition of disbarment proceedings violated the prohibition against ex post facto laws and his First Amendment right to the freedom of speech. The trial court disbarred the attorney. The court affirmed, holding that there was no question that a conspiracy to violate the Smith Act was a crime involving moral turpitude. The court further held that there was no clause in the Maryland Constitution that prohibited retrospective laws in civil cases, and a disbarment proceeding was not a criminal proceeding. The court noted that the acts for which the attorney was disbarred were committed after the enactment of the Smith Act and the Maryland disbarment statute, Md. Ann. Code art. 10, §§ 13, 16 17 (Supp. 1955).

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the order of disbarment.

Hyman A. Pressman et al. v. Henry A. Barnes, Director of Traffic, Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City, et al., 209 Md 544

Bill of complaint for a declaratory degree filed in Baltimore City Circuit Court on 12 August 1955. Petition for preliminary injunction and order of the court regarding preliminary injunction filed on 17 August 1955. City and State answers to bill of complaint filed on 19 August 1955. Witnesses examined and testimony taken on 23 August 1955. Memorandum filed by Judge Herman M. Moser on 23 September 1955. Order of the court dismissing declaratory decree and issuing costs to plaintiff filed on 30 September 1955. Order for appeal filed on 7 October 1955. Case filed in Court of Appeals on 5 December 1955. Decree affirmed in part and reversed in part and case remanded for modification of the decree in accordance with the opinion on 10 April 1956. Opinion filed by Judge Delaplaine on 10 April 1956. Petition for reargument filed on 24 April 1956; petition denied on 2 May 1956.

Trial Court Records:

BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Docket A, Miscellaneous) Pressman et al. v. Barnes et al., 1955, 95A, pp. 392, 649, no. 35141 [MSA T55-105, 1/2011/59]

BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Papers A, Miscellaneous) Pressman et al. v. Barnes et al., 1955, box no 1733, no. A35141 [MSA T53-5334, 3/10/1/35]

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions) Pressman et al. v. Barnes et al., 1955, October Term, no 140, MdHR 15,750-5 [MSA S393-286, 1/66/6/33]

COURT OF APPEALS (Records and Briefs) Pressman et al. v. Barnes et al., 1955, October Term, no 140 [MSA 1733-1451, 1/27/4/56]

COURT OF APPEALS (Miscellaneous Papers) Pressman et al. v. Barnes et al., 1955, October Term, no 140, MdHR 13,707-3 [MSA S397-145, 1/65/8/39]

Baltimore City Archives:

Baltimore City Archives, Law Department, Case Files, Hyman A. Pressman v. Henry Barnes. Injunction, challenging authority of Director of Traffic to set speed limits and provide penalities for violations; complicit police powers. Case no. 94,675, box no. 1023 [MSA BRG13-2-6-1, BC/30/11/017]

Scanned as msaref 5458-51-3510