Maryland State Archives

Appeal from Baltimore County Court

See also MSA SC 5339-41-18

It is stated as part of the case, that the stream of Jones's Falls was diverted by cutting a channel with the consent of the owners of the land on Jones's Falls, in the year 1786, through which canal the waters have since flowed. It is also stated, that until the year 1786 the common tides flowed up Jones's Falls to C D, marked on the plot, and that until 1786 boats frequently and regularly ascended Jones's Falls to C D, but never went up higher. It is also stated, that after the making of said canal the old bed of the stream, between the points where it was intersected by the canal, was gradually filled up by the washing of the adjacent lands, by the persons under whom the defendant claims, and by the improvements made in the neighborhood, and that the bed of the river hath wholly disappeared. The question is now to be considered--Whether the lessors of the plaintiff, claiming under Alexander Lawson, are entitled to the land to the middle bed of Jones's Falls, from the lines of the land conveyed to Alexander Lawson binding on the Falls, or what part thereof?

Appellate court materials -

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket, Western Shore) Browne v. Kennedy, 1821, June Term, case no. 4, MdHR 604 [MSA S414-7, 1/66/14/25]

COURT OF APPEALS (Judgments, Western Shore) Browne v. Kennedy, 1821, June Term, case no. 4, MdHR 683-28 [MSA S382-13, 1/62/6/28]

COURT OF APPEALS (Judgment Record, Western Shore) Browne v. Kennedy, 1821, June Term, case no. 4, Liber TH 19, p. 340, MdHR 345 [MSA S420-16, 1/66/11/27]

Trial Court Records:

Unable to locate; probably in BA County Court, County Civil Docket, 1817, Sept. Term. Use Judgments instead.

Searched for lower court materials in CE19; no records found

Property at issue in suit located along Jones Falls near where the Bascilia is now:

MSA SC5339-7-29. Note area along Jones Falls where no streats are layed out.

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=39.292677,-76.613524&spn=0.010827,0.024719&z=16

Appeal from Baltimore County Court

OVERVIEW: The lot owner, along with another deceased owner, owned lots fronting the water. Through an agreement with city commissioners, the two owners extended a market space in the water to a channel. The two owners had been collecting wharfage on the extended wharf until the mayor and the city council prevented them from collecting such fees and began collecting them on behalf of the city. The chancery court enjoined both parties from receiving any wharfage. The court first dismissed the bills against the mayor and council, dissolving the injunction against them and holding that the commissioners never gave a right of domain in the wharves and canal to be constructed to the lot owners. Their attempt to charge wharfage, therefore, was a violation of the spirit and meaning of the condition imposed by the commissioners, which declared that the canal, wharves, and streets on each side of the canal was to be a common highway and free for public use. The court then reversed the judgment as to the injunction against the mayor, holding that because the city was bound to cleanse the canal and to regulate and repair the wharves, the wharfage was the natural fund to defray the expenditure.

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket, Western Shore) Dugan v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 1833, December Term, case nos. 34 and 35, MdHR 620 [MSA S414-12, 1/66/14/30]

Trial Court Records:

CHANCERY COURT (Chancery Docket) Cumberland Dugan and Thomas McEldery vs. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 1805, Liber

CHANCERY COURT (Chancery Papers) Cumberland Dugan and Thomas McEldery vs. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 1805, MdHR 17,898-1309-1/11 [MSA S512-2-1356, 1/36/1/xx]

CHANCERY COURT (Chancery Record) Cumberland Dugan and Thomas McEldery vs. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 1805, Liber 144, p. 42, MdHR

Google map showing location of case:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=39.287637,-76.606776&spn=0.00563,0.01236&z=17

Appeal from Baltimore County Court

OVERVIEW: The corporate owner of the turnpike road alleged that the construction of a railroad upon the turnpike constituted a trespass. The trial court ruled in favor of the railroad company. On appeal, the court affirmed. The court accepted the railroad company's argument that the terms of the turnpike company's charter did not restrict the legislature in the exercise of eminent domain or vest in the corporate owner the exclusive right to use the road as claimed. The court held that the plain meaning of the terms of the charter allowed for construction of the railroad, and the terms had no peculiar or legal meaning.

Appellate court materials -

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket, Western Shore) Washington & Baltimore Turnpike Road v. B&O Rail Road Co., 1839, December Term, case no. 106, MdHR 622 [MSA 414-14, 1/66/14/32]

COURT OF APPEALS (Judgments, Western Shore) Washington & Baltimore Turnpike Road v. B&O Rail Road Co., 1839, December Term, case no. 106, MdHR 683-491 [MSA S382-188, 1/63/7/41]

Trial Court Records:

BA Court, September Term, 1839? Unable to locate, use judgments instead. Searched MSA CE19, no records found.

Appeal from Baltimore City Superior Court

OVERVIEW: Pursuant to 1853 Md. Laws 376, the Mayor and the City Council were authorized to contract with property owners to hold any land that they deemed necessary for the purpose of conveying water into the city. The original landowner was given damages as a result of the taking and use of his property. After the original landowner became insolvent, the buyer purchased the property at a public auction, subject to the right of the Mayor and the City Council to their use of the pure water. He then filed the motion seeking to enjoin the Mayor and the City Council from interfering with the use of his mill, which had not interfered with the use by the Mayor and the City Council of the pure water. Pursuant to Md. Const. art. III, § 46, the city was not permitted to take any property except for a public use. The court held that because the buyer's use of the mill water had not interfered with the use of the pure water as acquired by the Mayor and the City Council, they were not permitted to interfere with the buyer's use. The court reversed the order of the superior court and continued the injunction issued against the Mayor and the City Council.

Note that case is discussed in Shreve v. Baltimore, 243 Md. 613 (1966)

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) Kane v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 1859, December Term, case no. 186, p. 166, MdHR 633 [MSA S412-7, 1/66/14/38]

COURT OF APPEALS (Briefs) Kane v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 1859, December Term, case no. 186, MdHR 723-41 [MSA S375-26, 1/64/11/42]

COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions) Kane v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 1859, December Term, case no. 186, MdHR 707-29 [MNSA S393-15, 1/65/12/57]

COURT OF APPEALS (Judgment Record) Kane v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 1859, December Term, case no. 186, Liber WAS 3, p. 443, MdHR 362 [MSA S422-24, 1/66/11/44]
Note: pages 441-444 are missing from volume

Trial Court Records:

BALTIMORE CITY SUPERIOR COURT (Chancery Docket) Kane v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 1858, p. 164, MdHR 19,973-11 [MSA C166-3, 2/15/9/10]

BALTIMORE CITY SUPERIOR COURT (Chancery Papers) Kane v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 1858, C533, MdHR 40,200-5557-1/5 [MSA C168-1170, 2/16/6/46]
Folder One Folder Two Folder Three Folder Four Folder Five

Location of case, as shown on google maps:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=39.318429,-76.629274&spn=0.011255,0.024719&z=16

Land at issue in case located on Jones Falls and Falls Road Turnpike, close to the Rockdale Flour Mill. Mill location shown on MSA SC5339-7-30

The land was purchased by George P. Kane in 1858 at a public auction, held to liquidate the property of Samuel D. Tonge, who was an insolvent debtor (see insolvency proceedings below). Kane paid $8500 for the tract. Tonge had purchased the land in 1851 in a sale that seems to have arisen out of a Baltimore County Court equity case, Daniel Warfield v. Hugh Birkhead and Charles R. Pearce; Tonge bought the land at auction. Warfield held the ground rent on the land.

Notes on Kane's land holdings in Baltimore County.

BALTIMORE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT (Land Records) Thomas M. Lanahan, trustee for Samuel D. Tonge to George P. Kane, 1858, Liber GHC 24, pp. 49-52 [MSA CE62-24].

BALTIMORE COUNTY COURT (Land Records) Samuel H. Tagart, trustee to Samuel D. Tonge, 1851, LIber AWB 465, pp. 241-244 [MSA CE66-515].

BALTIMORE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT (Insolvency Docket) Insolvent estate of Samuel D. Tonge, 1858, case no. 59, pp. 15, 18, 19, 23, 30, 32 [MSA T1240-1, 0/12/1/10]
Unable to locate any papers--there don't seem to be any insolvency papers at MSA.

There was one appeal that arose from the case, which was dismissed because it was filed too late. No Court of Appeals records for the case, probably because the court never heard it.

Thomas Sparks' Appeal in the Insolvent Estate of Tonge, 18 Md. 417 (1862)

Other cases:

BALTIMORE COUNTY COURT (Chancery Papers) Hugh Birckhead and Charles R. Pearce vs. Daniel Warfield, White Hall Co., William Kennedy, William McKim, and William Mason. Insolvent estate of Mason, 1849, C200, MdHR 40,200-3937-1/3 [MSA C295-3978, 2/15/14/26]

BALTIMORE COUNTY COURT (Chancery Papers) Daniel Warfield vs. Robert Wylie, Robert Y. Wilson, John Wells, William Miller, Hugh Birckhead, Charles R. Pearce, William Mason, White Hall Co., William McKim, William Kennedy, Ellis B. Long, William W. Byrn, Robert Poole, William Ferguson, et al., 1850, C175, MdHR 40,200-4109-1/3 [MSA C295-4152, 2/15/14/36]

Appeal from Baltimore City Court of Common Pleas

OVERVIEW: The railroad's excavation work for the tunnel disturbed the natural support of the corner house on the site, and the homeowner's house was dependent on the corner house for its stability. The railroad contended that the trial court's instruction failed to refer to the authority pursuant to which the railroad was acting and omitted the question of negligence in connection with the construction of the tunnel, thereby depriving it of any valid defense. The court held that the railroad was liable if its negligence caused the injury to the house. Further, the court found that there was redress for any damage to private property which resulted even though the railroad, a private corporation, had obtained authority for the project from the mayor and city council of Baltimore, which authority was ratified by in 1879 Md. Laws 80. Finally, the court determined that the railroad's excavation work was the proximate cause of the homeowner's injury. The excavation caused a disturbance in the foundation of the corner house, and by reason of that house's close connection with the homeowner's property, the injury done to the homeowner's property was imputed to the first cause, the excavation work.

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) Reaney v. Baltimore and Potomac Railroad Company, 1874, October Term, case no. 49, MdHR 636 [MSA S412-10, 1/66/14/41]

COURT OF APPEALS (Briefs) Reaney v. Baltimore and Potomac Railroad Company, 1874, October Term, case no. 49, MdHR 723-71 [MSA S375-83, 1/64/12/7]

No judgments, misc. papers, opinion

Trial Court Records:

BALTIMORE CITY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS (Cases Instituted) Reaney v. Baltimore and Potomac Railroad Company, 1873, p. 134 [MSA T511-20, 3/2/10/20].

BALTIMORE CITY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS (Court Papers) Reaney v. Baltimore and Potomac Railroad Company, 1873,
Papers should be in either box no. 349 [MSA T508-46, 3/1/10/4] or in box no. 350 [MSA T508-47, 3/1/10/5]

House at issue in case located at Madison Ave. and Wilson St.: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=39.306302,-76.630851&spn=0.005413,0.01236&z=17

Appeal from Baltimore City Circuit Court

OVERVIEW: Pursuant to the Ordinance, the city council gave the business owner permission to install a steam engine in his business with the provision that he would be required to remove the engine after six months' notice from the mayor or be subject to a penalty if he failed to remove it. The owner refused to remove the engine after receiving notice, appellants brought an action before a justice of the peace to enforce the penalty, and the owner brought a successful action in the circuit court to enjoin appellants from prosecuting their action. The court affirmed the circuit court's order and ruled that the Ordinance was void because it gave the mayor unfettered discretion to enforce or decline to enforce the Ordinance as he saw fit. A stationary steam engine, such as the owner's, was not a nuisance even if it was erected and used in the midst of the city, unless it interfered with the safety or convenience of the public. Appellants' only complaint against the owner's engine was that it posed an explosion risk, as did all steam engines, and that its use involved the placement of combustible materials in dangerous proximity to the engine's boiler fire, which raised the risk of a fire.

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) Radecke v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 1878, April Term, case no. 24, MdHR 636 [MSA S412-10, 1/66/14/41]

COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions) Radecke v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 1878, April Term, case no. 24, MdHR 707-67 [MSA S393-53, 1/65/12/95]

No briefs, judgments, misc papers.

Trial court materials:

BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Docket A) Radecke v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 1874, Liber 14, p. 69 [MSA T55-14, 3/3/14/42]

BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Papers A) Radecke v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 1874, box no. 638 [MSA T53-684, 3/12/6/50]

Business at issue located at 22 MacClellen's Alley, which ran between Baltimore and Fayette streets, near Liberty

http://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/ecpdata/webroot/msaref07/bc_ba_atlases_1876_1915/html/bc_ba_atlases_1876_1915-0569.html

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=39.290909,-76.616303&spn=0.005414,0.01236&z=17

Appeal from Baltimore City Superior Court

OVERVIEW: The property owner's land fronted on the river, a tidal navigable stream, near the city, and he had a brickyard and a wharf at which vessels of considerable size loaded and unloaded before the obstructions occurred. The city contended that 1872 Md. Laws 246 gave it authority to widen and deepen the ship channel leading into the river and to keep the channel in proper condition in width and depth. The court noted that the Act did not refer to previous legislation, rejecting the notion that it repealed a previous statute, and stating that the Act conferred additional power in affirmative terms. The court held that the city and its contractor acted without authority, violating Md. Code Pub. Loc. Laws, art. 4, § 794, and creating a public nuisance. The court opined that the property owner had a claim for the effect of deposits into the river on his riparian rights, an injury not suffered by other members of the public. The court observed that Md. Code Pub. Loc. Laws, art. 4, § 795, did not provide redress for private injuries, and the common law remedy the property owner chose was unaffected. The court concluded that the case should have gone to the jury; a directed verdict was error.

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) Garitee v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 1879, October Term, no. 74, MdHR 636 [MSA S412-10, 1/66/14/41]

COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions) Garitee v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 1879, October Term, no. 74, MdHR 707-74 [MSA S393-6, 1/65/13/6]

COURT OF APPEALS (Briefs) Garitee v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 1879, October Term, no. 74, MdHR 723-85 [MSA S375-112, 1/64/12/41]

COURT OF APPEALS (Judgments) Garitee v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 1879, October Term, no. 74, MdHR 683-182 [MSA S381-121, 1/62/10/2]

Trial Court Records:

BALTIMORE CITY SUPERIOR COURT (Cases Instituted) Garitee v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 1877, p. 245, "drawer R no. 4," MdHR 50,336-27 [MSA C1497-28, 2/16/11/13]

BALTIMORE CITY SUPERIOR COURT (Court Papers) Garitee v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 1877, "drawer R no. 4," box no. 39 [MSA T51-36, 2/20/7/9]

Retrial:

BALTIMORE CITY SUPERIOR COURT (Cases Instituted) Garitee v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 1880, p. 203, "box 627," MdHR 50,336-29 [MSA C1497-30, 2/17/11/15]

BALTIMORE CITY SUPERIOR COURT (Civil Papers) Garitee v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 1880, Can't locate correct papers

Additional Cases:

Peter E. Tome v. William L. Garitee and Hannah E. Garitee

BALTIMORE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Docket) Tome v. Garitee, 1888, Liber JWS 12, case no. 6145, p. 40, MdHR 20,227-12 [MSA C326-12, 2/49/8/11]

No papers; consolidated with case no. 6147, 20 May 1889. See below.

Susanna Popplein v. John W. Bennett, trustee, William L. Garitee, Hannah E. Garitee, George Hawkins Williams, Peter E. Tome, and Peter E. Branan

BALTIMORE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Docket) Popplein v. Garitee, et al., 1888, Liber JWS 12, case no. 6147, pp. 40, 262, 265, MdHR 20,227-12 [MSA C326-12, 2/49/8/11]

BALTIMORE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Papers) Popplein v. Garitee, et al., 1888, case no. 6147, box no. 769 [MSA T696-99, 0/35/7/5]

BALTIMORE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT (Judicial Record) Popplein v. Garitee, et al., 1888, case no. 6147, Liber JWS 123, pp. 176-268 [MSA T258-123, 2/35/9/8]

Maps -

Property was a brickyard located on the Patapsco, located near Sollers Point.

Google Map

Bromley Atlas of Baltimore County, 1898, plate 33

1888 plat showing Baltimore and Sparrows Point Railroad Company right of way through the property of William L. Garitee (Source: Plat Book JWS 1, p. 167, MSA C2136-5823, p. 1 )

Scanned as msaref 5458-51-4108

Appeal from Baltimore County Circuit Court

OVERVIEW: The question or the court on appeal was whether a court in equity was allowed to intervene to stop the slaughterhouse owner from committing the acts, which constituted such an inconsiderable part of the wrong complained of, and which if stopped, would leave the mill owner still suffering from almost as great a grievance as he was subject to. The right of a riparian owner to have the water of a stream come to him in its natural purity, or in the condition in which he has been in the habit of using it for the purposes of his domestic use or of his business, was well recognized. The court on appeal held that it was no answer to a complaint of nuisance that a great many others were committing similar acts of nuisance upon the stream. Each and every one was liable to a separate action and to be restrained. Each wrongdoer's action standing alone might amount to little or nothing. But it was when all were united together, and contributed to a common result, that they became important as factors, in producing the mischief of which was complained. An injunction was a proper remedy.

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) Woodyear v. Schaefer, 1881, April Term, case no. 118, p. 111, MdHR 637 [MSA S412-11, 1/66/14/42]

COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions) Woodyear v. Schaefer, 1881, April Term, case no. 118, MdHR 707-79 [MSA S393-65, 1/65/13/11]

Trial Court Records:

BALTIMORE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT(Equity Docket) Woodyear v. Schaefer, Volume JB 7, pp. 226 and 250, Case no. 4335, MdHR 20,227-7 [MSA C326-7, 2/49/8/6]

BALTIMORE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT(Equity Papers) Woodyear v. Schaefer, Box 733 Case no. 4335 [MSA T696-62, 0/35/6/9]

Property at issue located near the intersection of Gwynns Falls and Gwynns Run, near where the B&o track crossed the Gwynns Falls. Close to modern-day Carroll Park

MSA SC5339-7-30

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=39.276251,-76.651611&spn=0.08664,0.197754&z=13

Appeal from Baltimore County Circuit Court

OVERVIEW: The fertilizer factory manufactured sulfuric acid and various fertilizers. The operator alleged that the factory was there and in operation before the property owner constructed the houses and hotel on the five lots that he owned. The court affirmed and held as follows: (1) in the eye of the law, no place could be convenient for the carrying on of a business which was a nuisance, and which caused substantial injury to the property of another; (2) the use of the land was not reasonable where it deprived an adjoining owner of the lawful use and enjoyment of his property; (3) in actions of this kind, the question whether the place where the trade or business was carried on, was a proper and convenient place for the purpose, or whether the use by the operator of his own land was, under the circumstances, a reasonable use, were questions which ought not to be submitted to the finding of the jury; and (4) the fact that the property owner "came to the nuisance" was no defense to the action.

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) Susquehanna Fertilizer Co. of Baltimore City v. Malone, 1890, October Term, case no. 49, MdHR 638 [MSA S412-12, 1/66/14/43]

COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions) Susquehanna Fertilizer Co. of Baltimore City v. Malone, 1890, October Term, case no. 49, MdHR 707-107 [MSA S393-93, 1/65/13/39]

COURT OF APPEALS (Judgments) Susquehanna Fertilizer Co. of Baltimore City v. Malone, 1890, October Term, case no. 49, MdHR 683-436 [MSA S381-287, 1/63/06/31]

No Records and Briefs for this case at MSA?

Trial Court Records:

BALTIMORE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT (Civil Docket) Malone v. Susquehanna Fertilizer Co. of Baltimore City, Liber JWS 17, MdHR 20,222-16 [MSA C358-16, 2/48/14/16]

Civil Papers from BA CC are very incomplete for this time period.

Property located in Canton on 8th Street, which no longer exsists. The factory is shown on the 1915 BA Bromley Atlas on plate 35 at 8th and Highland.

http://www.mdhistory.net/msaref07/bc_ba_atlases_1876_1915/html/bc_ba_atlases_1876_1915-0764.html

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=39.269258,-76.565373&spn=0.010831,0.024719&t=h&z=16

Appeal from Baltimore City Circuit Court

OVERVIEW: The company purchased land near a parcel of city-owned property that at one time had been used as a place of quarantine for individuals suffering from contagious diseases. After the company began developing its land, the city proposed to place a woman who was suffering from leprosy in a facility on the city-owned property. The company filed an action seeking to enjoin the city from placing the woman there. The trial court granted the company's request for injunctive relief. The court affirmed, finding that the company was entitled to an injunction because the woman's presence on the property would have constituted a nuisance and would have substantially lessened the value of the company's land. The court noted that it was within the city's police power to operate a facility to care for individuals with contagious diseases and that the company could not object to the placement if the city had continued to use the property for the operation of such a facility. However, the court found that the city had abandoned that use of the property and that it could not restore the former use to the detriment of surrounding owners.

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. Fairfield Improvement Co., 1898, January Term, case no. 61, p. 13, MdHR 640 [MSA S412-14, 1/66/14/45]

COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions) Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. Fairfield Improvement Co., 1898, January Term, case no. 61, MdHR 707-131 [MSA S393-117, 1/65/13/63]

COURT OF APPEALS (Records and Briefs) Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. Fairfield Improvement Co., 1898, January Term, vol. 4 [MSA S1733-121, 1/65/1/121]

Trial Court Records:

BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Docket A) Fairfield Improvement Co. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 1897, Liber 37A, p. 162 [MSA T55-37, 3/4/1/20]

BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Papers A) Fairfield Improvement Co. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 1897 [MSA T53-281, 3/12/2/9]

Baltimore City Archives:

Maps:

Property located in AA County, 5th district, in town of Fairfield

Google map showing Hawkins Point

Scanned as msaref 5458-51-4112

Other
Environmental Study of Fairfield

Appeal from Baltimore County Circuit Court

OVERVIEW: The condemnors acquired by condemnation and purchase the right to use, as part of its water supply, the water of a river. The riparian proprietor was an owner on the river. The riparian proprietor filed a bill against the condemnors alleging that the condemnors acquired from a large number of riparian owners the right to use so much of the water of a stream as would flow through a conduit of the capacity of flow of a certain number of gallons per day, and that the condemnors failed to acquire by contract or condemnation any rights whatever in the stream of water belonging to the riparian proprietor until a certain date, when a deed was executed. The riparian proprietor also alleged that the condemnation constituted a blot on his title, and he sought the removal thereof. The condemnors' demurrer was overruled. The condemnors appealed. On review, the court reversed because the sale of water by the condemnors to the inhabitants of a county was not illegal. In addition, the court reasoned that the words in the deed could not be construed as a condition subsequent or as a limitation upon the right of the city to use the water in any way it may be authorized by statute to use.

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. Day, 1899, April Term, case no. 42, p. 102, MdHR 640 [MSA S412-14, 1/66/14/45]

COURT OF APPEALS(Opinions) Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. Day, 1899, April Term, case no. 42, MdHR 707-134 [MSA S393-120, 1/65/13/66]

COURT OF APPEALS(Records and Briefs) Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. Day, 1899, April Term, case no. 37—-Not at MSA

Trial Court Records:

BALTIMORE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Docket) Day v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Volume 14 page 249, Case no. 3266, MdHR 20,227-14 [MSA C326-14, 2/49/8/13]

BALTIMORE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Papers) Day v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Box 717 Case no. 3266 [MSA T696-45, 0/35/5/33]

See also: BALTIMORE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT (Civil Docket) Day v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Volume 19 page 350, case no. 2571 and page 209, case no. 2025 [MSA C358-18, 2/48/14/18]

Baltimore City Archives:

Baltimore City Solicitor case file no. 48

Appeal from Baltimore County Circuit Court

OVERVIEW: The principal ground relied upon by the developer in its bill to restrain the suit at law was the alleged fact that defendants sold the developer the land used by him as a disposal field for his subdivision and knew the exact purpose for which the land was purchased. The developer claimed that defendants were equitably estopped from claiming any damage for a nuisance, which made it impossible for defendants to sell their land or the lots, by reason of its maintenance. The court noted that the developer's defense was based upon an equitable estoppel. If the facts constituted an estoppel, they could be set up by way of defense at law as in equity. In order to justify a resort to a court of equity, it was necessary to show some ground of equity other than the estoppel itself. The second ground of relief alleged by the bill was to prevent a multiplicity of suits. Affirming, the court ruled that a court of equity could not exercise its jurisdiction for the purpose of preventing a multiplicity of suits in cases where the plaintiff invoking such jurisdiction did not have a prior existing cause of action, either equitable or legal, and no prior existing right to some relief.

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) Roland Park Co. v. Hull, 1901, January Term, case no. 11, p. 220, MdHR 640 [MSA S412-14, 1/66/14/45]

COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions) Roland Park Co. v. Hull, 1901, January Term, case no. 11, MdHR 707-138 [MSA S393-124, 1/65/13/70]

COURT OF APPEALS (Records and Briefs) Roland Park Co. v. Hull, 1900, October Term, case no. 10 [MSA S1733-158, 1/65/2/7]

Trial Court Records:

BALTIMORE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT (Civil Docket) Hull v. Roland Park Co., Volume NMB 20 pp. 28 and 396, Case no. 2830, MdHR 20,222-19 [MSA C358-19, 2/48/14/19]

See also: BALTIMORE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT (Civil Docket) Hull v. Roland Park Co., Volume NMB 20, page 27, Case no. 2828, MdHR 20,222-19 [MSA C358-19, 2/48/14/19]

BALTIMORE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT (Civil Papers) Hull v. Roland Park Co., Box 278 No. 2830 [MSA T697-1, 2/54/14/2]
Note: No separate papers located for 2828.

Mapping:

Property located in the vicinity of Cold Spring Lane and Ashland Ave (now Wimslow Road?).

1898 Bromley Atlas of Baltimore County, plate 13, Detail of Evergreen

Google Map

Scanned as msaref 5458-51-4155

Appeal from Baltimore City Circuit Court

OVERVIEW: The commissioner of street cleaning advertised for proposals for the collection and disposal of garbage, dead animals, ashes, and miscellaneous refuse. The board of awards forwarded all bids to the commissioner to evaluate. The commissioner rejected the lowest bid, apparently because of the proposed method for disposing of the refuse. The board then awarded the contract to the next lowest bidder, and the taxpayer brought this action to enjoin the city from entering into the contract. On appeal, the court reversed. The court agreed with the taxpayer that 1898 Md. Laws 123, § 15 conferred upon the board but a single power, which was to open the bids and award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder. The court held that the board was not given any power to make comparisons or to determine anything respecting materials offered or work proposed or the means of its execution. Nor was there any authority vested in any other agency of the municipality to take such actions in connection with awarding contracts under § 15. Because the board awarded the contract on the basis of a previously unspecified essential of the contract, the court held that the contract was ultra vires and void.

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) Packard v. Hayes, 1902, January Term, case no. 8, p. 328, MdHR 640 [MSA S412-14, 1/66/14/45]

COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions) Packard v. Hayes, 1902, January Term, case no. 8, MdHR 707-142 [MSA S393-128, 1/65/13/74]

COURT OF APPEALS (Records and Briefs) Packard v. Hayes, 1901, October Term, case no. 43 [MSA S1733-176, 1/65/2/25]

COURT OF APPEALS (Misc. Papers) Packard v. Hayes, 1902, January Term, case no. 8, MdHR 708-28 [MSA S397-22, 1/65/6/14]

Trial Court Records:

BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Docket A) Hayes v. Packard, 1901, Liber 40A, p. 268? [MSA T55-40, 3/4/1/23]

BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Papers A) Hayes v. Packard, 1901,

Baltimore City Archives:

Baltimore City Solicitor case file no. 228

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].

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. 253, 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].

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
Possibly no. 364 as well

Appeal from Baltimore City Circuit Court No. 2

OVERVIEW: The company filed this proceeding after its application for a permit to lay certain mains and pipes was refused. The court rejected the city officials' contention that the only remedy open to the company was by a petition to a court of law for a writ of mandamus. The court held that the company properly brought this action for an injunction to restrain interference with the laying of its mains. The court found that the 1886 Md. Laws 100 gave the company authority to lay water mains in certain villages. The Annexation Act, 1888 Md. Laws 98 made the part of the city where the company sought to lay the water pipes part of the city. 1891 Md. Laws ch. 123, § 6 provided that before the city could have delayed any pipes where other had laid then, the pipes should have been condemned. 1891 Md. Laws ch. 123, § 2 provided that the act should not have affected any vested rights and that all laws and ordinances not inconsistent with the act were continued and that the act should not have been construed to enlarge the powers of the mayor and city council. Therefore, the company's rights to lay pipes in the part of the city in which they sought to do so was not repealed.

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) Mayor & City Council v. Baltimore County Water and Electric Co., 1902, April Term, case no. 25, p. 375, MdHR 640 [MSA S412-14, 1/66/14/45].

COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions) Mayor & City Council v. Baltimore County Water and Electric Co., 1902, April Term, case no. 25, MdHR 707-143 [MSA S393-193, 1/65/13/75]

COURT OF APPEALS (Records and Briefs) Mayor & City Council v. Baltimore County Water and Electric Co., 1902, April Term, case no. 28 [MSA S1733-186, 1/65/2/34]

Trial Court Records:

BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT NO. 2 (Equity Docket A) Mayor & City Council v. Baltimore County Water and Electric Co., 1901, Volume 10A page 402, Case no. 5302 1/2A [MSA T996-10, 3/18/6/24]

BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT NO. 2 (Equity Papers A) Mayor & City Council v. Baltimore County Water and Electric Co., 1901, Box 402, Case no. 5302 1/2A [MSA T56-205, 3/23/6/90]