Maryland State Archives

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) December 1862-April 1865 [MSA S412-8, 1/66/14/039]

Database contains all BC cases in Court of Appeals docket in June 1861; Dec 1861; June 1862; Dec 1862; June 1863; Dec 1863; Jun 1864; Jan 1865; Apr 1865

Note: Most recent version may found at L:\msa\stagser\s1259\153

Database of all cases docketed in June Term, 1861-April Term, 1865

Spreadsheet of all cases docketed in June Term, 1861-April Term, 1865
Includes selected cases in separate section

CASE SUMMARY
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellants, the mayor and the city council of Baltimore and the city collector, sought review of the decision of the Circuit Court of Baltimore City (Maryland), which ordered a continuing injunction requested by appellee property owner to restrain the sale of his property for his failure to make payment of a tax assessed thereon for the grading of an avenue.

OVERVIEW: The taxpayer contended that the city collector had no right to charge him with the tax because the city authorities had wholly disregarded the provisions of the 1856 Md. Laws ch. 164, for the grading of the avenue on which his property fronted. On appeal, the court determined that the affirmance of the judgment of the trial court could properly be rested on the broad ground that the city road commissioner had no authority to cause the avenue to be graded and that all his proceedings in the premises were coram non judice and void. This determination was based on the construction of 1856 Md. Laws ch. 164. Under the Act the city authorities possessed no power to grade the avenue. The mayor and city council fatally failed initially to make a determination that the grading was consistent with the public good. Under these circumstances, it was impossible to say that the action of the city road commissioner was authorized by any law or ordinance, without which the payment of the tax assessed could not be enforced by a sale of the taxpayer's property.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the decision of the trial court and made the injunction perpetual.

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, City Collector v. George U. Porter, 1861, December Term no. 237, p. 432 [MSA S412-7, 1/66/14/38].

COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions) Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, City Collector v. George U. Porter, 1861, December Term no. 237 [MSA S393-17, 1/65/12/59].

COURT OF APPEALS (Briefs) Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, City Collector v. George U. Porter, 1861, December Term no. 237 [MSA S375-31, 1/64/12/2].

Trial Court Records:

BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Docket A) George U. Porter v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 1858, 3A, p. 84 [MSA T55-3, 3/3/14/31].

BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Papers A) George U. Porter v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 1858, box no. 588 [MSA T53-630, 3/12/5/56].

CASE SUMMARY
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellants, the County Commissioners of Baltimore County, sought review of a judgment entered by the Superior Court of Baltimore City (Maryland), which found in favor of appellees, the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, in the County Commissioners' action to recover certain compensation they had paid to the State's Attorney of Baltimore County.

OVERVIEW: The County Commissioners paid compensation to the State's Attorney for services rendered in certain criminal cases that had been removed from the City's criminal court to the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. The County Commissioners filed suit against the Mayor and City Council to collect those funds. The superior court gave the jury instructions requested by the Mayor and City Council. The jury found in their favor. The superior court entered a judgment on the verdict. The County Commissioners appealed from that judgment, which was reversed without procedendo. 1852 Md. Laws 315 allowed the judges of the Circuit Court, in criminal cases moved from the criminal court to the Circuit Court, to award the State's Attorney compensation in addition to that allowed by law. The legislation also made the City responsible for the additional compensation. The court stated that the provisions of 1852 Md. Laws 315 were too explicit to be impliedly repealed 1854 Md. Laws 269, which did not provide for the additional compensation. In that regard, 1852 Md. Laws 315 applied only to the City and County of Baltimore, while the latter legislation operated throughout the state.

OUTCOME: The court reversed the superior court's judgment, without procedendo.

Appeallate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. County Commissioners of Baltimore County, 1862, December Term no. 16, p. 5 [MSA S412-8, 1/66/14/39].

COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions) Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. County Commissioners of Baltimore County, 1862, December Term no. 16 [MSA S393-18, 1/65/12/60].

COURT OF APPEALS (Judgments) Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. County Commissioners of Baltimore County, 1862, December Term no. 16 [MSA S381-189, 1/62/12/31].

COURT OF APPEALS (Briefs) Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. County Commissioners of Baltimore County, 1862, December Term no. 16 [MSA S375-33, 1/64/12/4].

Trial Court Records:

BALTIMORE CITY SUPERIOR COURT (Cases Instituted) County Commissioners of Baltimore County v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 1858, p. 15, "Box R no. 17" [MSA C1497-8, 2/16/10/66].

BALTIMORE CITY SUPERIOR COURT (Civil Court Papers) County Commissioners of Baltimore County v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 1858, box no. 18, "Box R no. 17" [MSA T591-65, 2/19/8/27].

CASE SUMMARY
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Complainants, the mayor, city council, and newly appointed board of police commissioners, sought review of an order from the Circuit Court for Baltimore City (Maryland), which refused to grant an injunction to prevent defendants, the former board of police commissioners, from disbursing any funds from an account with defendant bank and to require the bank to turn over the funds to complainants.

OVERVIEW: The former board of police commissioners was suspended by the federal government and practically discharged. The police force that had been established was disbanded, and an entirely new and distinct police force established by the authority of the federal government. 1862 Md. Laws 131 created a new board of police commissioners, who along with the mayor and city council members brought an action against the former board of police commissioners to obtain an injunction to prevent them from using or disbursing any part of a fund that belonged to the former board. The trial court refused to grant an injunction, holding that the new board of police was appointed by an act of the Maryland Legislature and that there was no provision in the act creating the new board giving it title to property belonging to the former board. The trial court further held that because the funds were raised under an act that had been repealed and the new act made no provision for such funds, they did not become property of the new board. The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, concurring in the view taken by the trial judge and for the reasons assigned in the opinion delivered by him.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the order.

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, et al v. Charles Howard, et al, 1863, June Term, no. 46, p. 66 [MSA S412-8, 1/66/14/39].

COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions) Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, et al v. Charles Howard, et al, 1863, June Term, no. 46 [MSA S393-18, 1/65/12/60].

COURT OF APPEALS (Briefs) Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, et al v. Charles Howard, et al, 1863, June Term, no. 46 [MSA 375-34, 1/64/12/5].

Trial Court Records:

BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Docket A) Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, et al v. Charles Howard, et al, 1862, 5A, p. 24 [MS T55-5, 3/3/14/33].

BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Papers A) Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, et al v. Charles Howard, et al, 1862, box no. 486 [MAS T53-521, 3/12/4/42].

Other court cases:

BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Docket A) Samuel Hinds, Nicholas L. Woods, John Lee Chapman v. Charles Howard, William H. Gatchell, Charles D. Hinks, John Davis, Farmers & Planters Bank, 1862, 5A, p. 44 [MS T55-5, 3/3/14/33].
No papers located.

BALTIMORE CITY SUPERIOR COURT (Cases Instituted) Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Charles Howard, William H. Gatchell, Charles D. Hinks, John Davis, 1860, p. 39, "Box R no. 19" [MSA C1497-10, 2/16/10/68].

BALTIMORE CITY SUPERIOR COURT (Civil Court Papers) Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Charles Howard, William H. Gatchell, Charles D. Hinks, John Davis, 1860, "Box R no. 19," box 18 [MSA T591-65, 2/19/8/27].

See also Baltimore v. State of Maryland, 15 Md 386.

CASE SUMMARY
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant executor of a testatrix challenged the decree of the Orphans' Court for Baltimore City (Maryland), which required the executor to pay interest on a sum that he held since his second account, to pay into the court a portion of the fund in his hands, and to use the remaining sum to carry into effect the testatrix's will. Appellee legatees filed the petition to require the executor to pass a third account and pay them as legatees.

OVERVIEW: The testatrix left her property, after payment of her debts and some small pecuniary legacies, to the legatees. The legatees were an association for the improvement of the condition of the poor. In his second account, the executor claimed that he could not distribute the funds in his hands because there was a pending claim against the estate. Affirming, the court concluded that the trial court properly charged the executor with interest. An executor had an imperative legal duty to retain assets to satisfy a legacy bequeathed by the will if there were assets sufficient to pay preferred claims. The executor did not have a right to retain assets to meet an unliquidated demand against the estate. The executor had to pay interest on the money that he kept in his hands without any apparent reason or necessity.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the decree of the trial court.

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) John H. Ing, exec. Rebecca Monteith v. The Baltimore Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor, 1863, December Term no. 147, p. 143 [MSA S412-8, 1/66/14/39].

COURT OF APPEALS (Briefs) John H. Ing, exec. Rebecca Monteith v. The Baltimore Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor, 1863, December Term no. 147 [MSA S375-35, 1/64/12/6].

Trial Court Records

BALTIMORE CITY REGISTER OF WILLS (Petitions) Estate of Rebecca Monteith, box no. 18 [MSA T621-24, 2/37/10/39].

BALTIMORE CITY REGISTER OF WILLS (Orphans Court Proceedings) 1857-1859, IPC 31, p. 242 [MSA T604-5, 2/31/14/27].

BALTIMORE CITY REGISTER OF WILLS (Orphans Court Proceedings) 1860-1862, IPC 33, p. 372, 401, 426, 439-440 [MSA T604-7, 2/31/14/29].

BALTIMORE CITY REGISTER OF WILLS (Orphans Court Proceedings) 1862-1863, IPC 34, p. 43, 50, 211 [MSA T604-8, 2/31/14/30].

CASE SUMMARY
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellants, mayor and city council of the City of Baltimore (city) sought review of the orders of the Circuit Court of Baltimore City (Maryland), which dissolved an injunction and denied the city's petition to obtain an injunction to enjoin defendant railroad from making a loan to or purchasing certain mortgages from another railroad for the purpose of constructing a roadbed.

OVERVIEW: The railroad sought to construct a roadbed between its main line and a station operated by the other railroad for the benefit of goods and passengers. To accomplish that purpose, the railroad loaned money to the other railroad, which was secured by corporate bonds and a mortgage of the other railroad's property, and sought to purchase prior mortgages to the property. The city held a prior mortgage to the property and sought to enjoin the construction of the roadbed, contending that the railroad was acting beyond its corporate powers. The railroad contended that it had the power to advance and appropriate money to construct the roadbed under the supplement to its charter, Act of 1836, ch. 276, and to purchase the prior mortgage as a mortgage creditor of the other railroad to prevent a foreclosure and the loss of its own mortgage claim. The court affirmed the orders of the trial court. The court held that the trial court properly denied the city an injunction because the railroad possessed the express power to subscribe for or aid in the construction of the roadbed under the Act of 1836.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the orders of the trial court dissolving an injunction issued to the city and denying the city's petition for an injunction to enjoin the railroad from lending money to another railroad or from purchasing prior mortgages to property for the construction of a road bed

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Baltimore & Ohio Rail Road Company, 1863, December Term no. 192, p. 151 [MSA S412-8, 1/66/14/39].

COURT OF APPEALS (Briefs) Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Baltimore & Ohio Rail Road Company, 1863, December Term no. 192 [MSA S375-35, 1/64/12/6].

Trial Court Records:

BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Docket A) Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Baltimore & Ohio Rail Road Company, 1863, 5A, p. 187 [MSA T55-5, 3/3/14/33].

BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Papers A) Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Baltimore & Ohio Rail Road Company, 1863, box no. 487 [MSA T53-522, 3/12/4/43].

CASE SUMMARY
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant railroad company sought review of an order from the Circuit Court of Baltimore City (Maryland), which overruled its motion to dissolve an injunction that prevented it from constructing, grading, or laying a branch railroad or from altering the grade of any of city streets, except with the consent and under the supervision of appellees, the mayor and the city council.

OVERVIEW: The railroad company was authorized by 1853 Md. Laws 191 to construct a lateral branch railroad that would pass through the city. The grant contained a proviso that the assent of the mayor and city council had to be obtained before any part of the branch railroad could be constructed within the limits of the city. By an ordinance, the city granted its consent subject to the city's right to regulate speed within the city, to the city's right to establish the grades of all the streets through which the road would pass, and to the city's right to supervise the construction. The mayor and city council brought an action to enjoin the railroad company from constructing its railroad without the consent of the mayor and the city council and not under its supervision. The trial court granted an injunction and overruled a motion to dissolve it. The court affirmed the order, holding that because the legislature gave the city the power to assent to the construction of the railroad track through the city, the city could lawfully impose the conditions upon which their assent was given. The court held that the provisions of the ordinance were valid and binding upon the railroad company.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the order.

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) The Northern Central Railway Company v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 1863, December Term no. 201, p. 152 [MSA S412-8, 1/66/14/39].

COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions) The Northern Central Railway Company v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 1863, December Term no. 201 [MSA S393-19, 1/65/12/61].

COURT OF APPEALS (Briefs) The Northern Central Railway Company v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 1863, December Term no. 201 [MSA S375-35, 01/64/12/6].

Trial Court Records:

BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Docket A) Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Northern Central Railway Co., 1857, p. 262 [MSA T55-2, 3/3/12/30].

BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Docket A) Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Northern Central Railway Co., 1857, box no. 483 [MSA T53-518, 3/12/4/39].

CASE SUMMARY
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant appealed a decision from the Criminal Court of Baltimore City (Maryland), which overruled his motion for discharge from custody on double jeopardy grounds and later convicted him of second-degree murder.

OVERVIEW: Defendant was indicted for murder. A jury was empanelled and sworn, but the trial court discharged them from giving any verdict due to the failure of the State's witnesses to appear when summoned. Defendant then sought discharge from custody, alleging that he had been put on trial under an indictment and the jury was discharged over defendant's objection before they could agree on a verdict. This motion was overruled and defendant was brought to trial during the next term and convicted. On appeal, the court held that the double jeopardy clause of U.S. Const. amend. 5 meant that where there had been a final verdict of either acquittal or conviction, on an adequate indictment, defendant could not be tried a second time for the particular offense. Where the jury had not returned a verdict, defendant had not been placed in jeopardy. The court also held that it had no power to review the trial court's decision to discharge the jury because such a matter was entirely within the trial court's discretion.

The court dismissed the writ of error.

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) Thomas Hoffman v. State of Maryland, 1863, December Term no. 256, p. 161 [MSA S412-8, 1/66/14/39].

COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions) Thomas Hoffman v. State of Maryland, 1863, December Term no. 256 [MSA S393-19, 1/65/12/61].

COURT OF APPEALS (Briefs) Thomas Hoffman v. State of Maryland, 1863, December Term no. 256 [MSA S375-36, 1/64/13/5].

COURT OF APPEALS (Judgments) Thomas Hoffman v. State of Maryland, 1863, December Term no. 256 [MSA S381-139, 1/63/8/26].

Trial Court Records

BALTIMORE CITY CRIMINAL COURT (Criminal Docket) State v. Hoffman, 1859, September Term, no. 441, p. 56 [MSA C1849-12, 3/29/14/33].

BALTIMORE CITY CRIMINAL COURT (Criminal Docket) State v. Hoffman, 1860, January Term, no. 73, p. 13 [MSA C1849-13, 3/29/14/34].

BALTIMORE CITY CRIMINAL COURT (Criminal Docket) State v. Hoffman, 1860, May Term, no. 1, p. 1 [MSA C1849-14, 3/29/14/35].

CASE SUMMARY
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant voter sought review of a judgment of the Equity side of the Superior Court of Baltimore City (Maryland), which dismissed an action against appellee governor seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the governor in ascertaining the number of votes cast at the last election, to count certain votes which were tendered and rejected.

OVERVIEW: The governor allegedly rejected certain votes cast in an election because the voters had refused to take the oath prescribed by Md. Const. art. VII, § 8. The voter brought an action seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the governor to count the votes that were tendered and rejected. The trial court dismissed the action, and the court affirmed. The court reasoned that the President of the United States was invested with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he was to use his own discretion, and was accountable only to his country in his political character and to his own conscience. The governor bore the same relation to the state that the President did to the United States, and in the discharge of his political duties was entitled to the same immunities, privileges and exemptions. The court held that because the acts to be done required the exercise of judgment and discretion in the governor against whom the mandamus was prayed, the court would refuse it. The duty and power to decide the question devolved upon the governor without appeal, over whom in that respect, the judiciary had no control or revisory power.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) Samuel G. Miles v. Augustus W. Bradford, Governor, 1864, June Term no. 257, p. 221 [MSA S412-8, 1/66/14/39].

COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions) Samuel G. Miles v. Augustus W. Bradford, Governor, 1864, June Term no. 257 [MSA S393-20, 1/65/12/62].

COURT OF APPEALS (Briefs) Samuel G. Miles v. Augustus W. Bradford, Governor, 1864, June Term no. 257 [MSA S375-37, 1/64/13/6].

Trial Court Records:

BALTIMORE CITY SUPERIOR COURT (Cases Instituted) Samuel G. Miles v. Augustus W. Bradford, Governor, 1864, p. 198, "box R no. 39" [MSA C1497-14, 2/16/10/72].

BALTIMORE CITY SUPERIOR COURT (Civil Court Papers) Samuel G. Miles v. Augustus W. Bradford, Governor, 1864, box no. 21, "box R no. 39" [MSA T591-68, 2/19/8/30].

CASE SUMMARY
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendants, a church and its president and secretary, appealed from a judgment of the Superior Court of Baltimore City (Maryland) entered on a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff pastor, who sought a writ of mandamus to compel defendants to reinstate him into the position of pastor of defendant church.

OVERVIEW: The pastor charged that defendants improperly removed him from his post and sought a writ of mandamus to compel reinstatement. After a jury in the superior court ruled in his favor, defendants appealed, but the court affirmed. In so ruling, it first noted that it was obliged to limit itself to the questions raised in and decided by the superior court. It then held that the superior court ruled properly in excluding various items offered by defendants including a notice of a meeting of the congregation because the notice did not comply with the requirements of the constitution that governed the church. Second, without regard to the provisions of the church's own constitution, the court found that as the pastor of the church, the pastor was considered a corporator under 1802 Md. Laws 111 and could not be amoted unless notice was given to all members of the congregation. The court thereupon found that while notice was given, it did not state that an item of business at the meeting was the proposed amotion of the pastor and thus was invalid. Finally, because the jury was properly instructed and because there were no errors in evidentiary rulings, the judgment was proper.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the judgment of the superior court entered on the jury verdict as well as the ensuing order issuing a writ of mandamus compelling the reinstatement of the pastor.

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) William H. Weber, et al v. L.F. Zimmerman, 1864, June Term, no. 235, p. 218 [MSA S412-8, 1/66/14/39].

COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions) William H. Weber, et al v. L.F. Zimmerman, 1864, June Term, no. 235 [MSA S393-20, 1/65/12/62].

Trial Court Records:

BALTIMORE CITY SUPERIOR COURT (Cases Instituted) William H. Weber, et al v. L.F. Zimmerman, 1864, p. 79, "box R no. 41" [MSA C1497-14, 2/16/10/72].

BALTIMORE CITY SUPERIOR COURT (Civil Court Papers) William H. Weber, et al v. L.F. Zimmerman, 1864, box no. 21, "box R no. 41" [MSA T591-68, 2/19/8/30].

Second Appeal
William H. Weber, et al v. L.F. Zimmerman
23 Md 45

CASE SUMMARY
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The court considered the motion of appellee church representative to supersede and quash a peremptory writ of mandamus and an attachment for contempt issued by the court to restore appellant former pastor to his office and functions as the minister of a certain evangelical church in an appeal of a judgment of the Superior Court of Baltimore City (Maryland).

OVERVIEW: Upon his contention that he was improperly removed from his position as the church's minister, the former pastor secured the court's issuance of a peremptory writ of mandamus to restore him to his office and functions. The writ was served only upon the church representative, who failed to promptly return the writ. In answer to the court's attachment for contempt, the representative moved to quash the mandamus and discharge the attachment upon the ground that, since the writ had been issued, the pastor had been formally and properly expelled from the church and synod and was thus disqualified from holding the office of minister under the church's charter. Further, a circuit court had enjoined the pastor from entering the church's pulpit or interfering with the minister now in charge of the church's congregation. While finding that the circuit court had no jurisdiction or authority to issue the injunction against the pastor in direct contravention of the writ, the court set aside the writ and quashed the attachment by finding that, as the pastor had been disqualified from holding the office of minister after the writ had been issued, the writ could no longer be executed.

OUTCOME: The court set aside the peremptory writ of mandamus and quashed the attachment without prejudice to the right of the former pastor to renew, in the superior court, his application for a writ and for a trial of the facts before a jury.

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) William H. Weber, et al v. L.F. Zimmerman, 1865, April Term, no. 230, p. 327 [MSA S412-8, 1/66/14/39].

COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions) William H. Weber, et al v. L.F. Zimmerman, 1865, April Term, no. 230 [MS S393-21,1/65/12/63].

COURT OF APPEALS (Briefs) William H. Weber, et al v. L.F. Zimmerman, 1865, April Term, no. 230 [MSA S375-39, 1/64/13/8].

CASE SUMMARY
Mayor tried to fire the Trustees of the Poor. Court ruled the issue was moot since the decision was handed down after the Trustees' terms would have ended anyway. From the Baltimore City Superior Court

Appellate Court Records

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) John Lee Chapman, Mayor of Baltimore v. John Morris, Edmund Wolf, and Samuel Wheeler, Trustees of the Poor of Baltimore City, 1865, April Term no. 119, p. 308 [MSA S412-8, 1/66/14/39].

COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions) John Lee Chapman, Mayor of Baltimore v. John Morris, Edmund Wolf, and Samuel Wheeler, Trustees of the Poor of Baltimore City, 1865, April Term no. 119, MdHR 707-35 [MSA S393-21, 1/65/12/63].

COURT OF APPEALS (Briefs) John Lee Chapman, Mayor of Baltimore v. John Morris, Edmund Wolf, and Samuel Wheeler, Trustees of the Poor of Baltimore City, 1865, April Term no. 119 [MSA S379-39, 1/64/13/8].

Trial Court Records:

BALTIMORE CITY SUPERIOR COURT (Cases Instituted) John Lee Chapman, Mayor of Baltimore v. John Morris, Edmund Wolf, and Samuel Wheeler, Trustees of the Poor of Baltimore City, 1863, p. 136, "box R no. 37" [MSA C1497-13, 2/16/10/71].

BALTIMORE CITY SUPERIOR COURT (Civil Court Papers) John Lee Chapman, Mayor of Baltimore v. John Morris, Edmund Wolf, and Samuel Wheeler, Trustees of the Poor of Baltimore City, 1863, box no. 21, "box R no. 37" [MSA T591-68, 2/19/8/30].

CASE SUMMARY
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellee property owners sought to restrain appellant mayor and city council from enforcing Baltimore, Md., Ordinance to Open a Street in Continuation of Holliday Street, from Baltimore Street to Second Street. The mayor and city council sought review of an order of the Circuit Court of Baltimore City (Maryland), which granted an injunction as requested by the owners.

OVERVIEW: The street opening ordinance provided that the street opening would take place in accordance with Baltimore, Md., Rev. Ordinances of 1858, No. 15 (June 5, 1858). The owners complained that the ordinance was invalid. In reversing the order granting the injunction, the court reasoned that Ordinance No. 15 provided that in cases of partial takings an owner could claim compensation for the whole; the part not taken would be sold and proceeds used toward the cost of a public improvement. This provision was valid under the Act of 1838, ch. 226 (Maryland) in part because the owner in such a case consented to the taking of the rest of the property. Under that Act, the street opening ordinance could provide for an appeal either to the superior or criminal court, which had concurrent jurisdiction; preservation of an owner's jury trial right was accomplished either way. Courts should not hold an ordinance void unless it was invalid beyond reasonable doubt. Md. Code Ann. vol. 2, art. 4, § 837 gave the mayor and city council discretion to decide if it was proper to open a street; they could validly require certain persons' assent to a provision about settlement of damages to their property.

OUTCOME: The court reversed the order granting the injunction and dismissed the bill with costs to the mayor and city council.

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Victor Clunet, next friend of C. Clunet, et al, 1865, April Term no. 211, p. 324 [MSA S412-8, 1/66/14/39].

COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions) Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Victor Clunet, next friend of C. Clunet, et al, 1865, April Term no. 211 [MSA 393-21, 1/65/12/63].

COURT OF APPEALS (Briefs) Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Victor Clunet, next friend of C. Clunet, et al, 1865, April Term no. 211 [MSA S375-39, 1/64/13/8].

Trial Court Records:

BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Docket A) Clunet v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 1865, 7A, p. 13 [MSA T55-7, 3/3/14/35].

BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Papers A) Clunet v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 1865, box no. 119 [MSA T53-135, 3/11/14/59].

CASE SUMMARY
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellants, Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, challenged a decree from the Superior Court of Baltimore City (Maryland) granted in favor of appellee lot owners that overruled appellants' motion to dissolve the injunction preventing the condemnation of the lot owners' property and to make that dissolution perpetual.

OVERVIEW: The lot owners filed a bill of complaint against appellants resisting any application of regulations to an avenue along their lots and opposing the making of improvements to the avenue. The trial court found that the application to pave the avenue was not signed by all the proprietors along the avenue and that the avenue was not a condemned street pursuant to Baltimore, Md., Rev. Ordinance No. 15, §§ 1, 36 (1850), and enjoined appellants from making the improvements. On appeal, the court reversed, and dismissed the bill, holding that the trial court incorrectly imposed the injunction obtained by the lot owners and also made it perpetual. The court found that the notice provided to the lot owners complied with the Act of 1838 (Act), ch. 226, § 1, according to which Baltimore, Md., Ordinance No. 61 (1851) was passed. The court found that Ordinance No. 61, which authorized the widening and condemnation of the avenue, was a legitimate exercise of power pursuant to the Act. The court found that appellants possessed the right of condemnation to the degree that the avenue already existed as a public highway before Ordinance No. 61 directed its widening and condemnation.

OUTCOME: The court reversed the decree which overruled appellants' motion to dissolve the injunction preventing the condemnation of the lot owners' property and to make that dissolution perpetual. The court dismissed the lot owners' bill and required that the parties pay their costs.

Appellate Courts Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Augustus Bouldin, et al, 1865, April Term no. 213, p. 324 [MSA S412-8, 1/66/14/39].

COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions) Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Augustus Bouldin, et al, 1865, April Term no. 213 [MSA S393-21, 1/65/12/63].

See also:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Augustus Bouldin, et al, 1865, October Term no. 153, p. 370 [MSA S412-8, 1/66/14/39].

COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions) Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Augustus Bouldin, et al, 1865, October Term no. 153 [MSA S393-22, 1/65/12/64].

COURT OF APPEALS (Briefs) Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Augustus Bouldin, et al, 1865, October Term no. 153 [MSA S375-41, 1/64/13/10].

Trial Courts Records:

BALTIMORE CITY SUPERIOR COURT (Chancery Docket) Bouldin, et al v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 1863, p. 158 [MSA C166-4, 2/15/9/11].

BALTIMORE CITY SUPERIOR COURT (Chancery Docket) Bouldin, et al v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 1863, C no. 17, MdHR 40,200-6005-1/9 [MSA C168-1630, 2/16/6/76].

CASE SUMMARY
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Petitioner sought to compel a criminal court to transmit a transcript of the record in a habeas corpus case.

OVERVIEW: The criminal court had refused to transmit the transcript on its own because it found that petitioner could not appeal from the habeas corpus case. The court stated that it had the exclusive right and province to determine the bounds of its jurisdiction, and decide in what cases an appeal did or did not lie from the judgments of inferior tribunals. However, the court held that petitioner had no right to appeal the order denying his habeas corpus petition. Thus, it dismissed his petition.

OUTCOME: The court dismissed the petition.

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) In re: Samuel S. Coston, 1865, April Term no. 250, p. 330 [MSA S412-8, 1/66/14/39].

COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions) In re: Samuel S. Coston, 1865, April Term no. 250 [MSA S393-21, 1/65/12/63].

Trial Court Records:

Unable to locate any records of the case from the Criminal Court; see transcript of Criminal Court proceedings in COURT OF APPEALS (Judgments).

Samuel S. Coston v. Leah Coston
25 Md 500

CASE SUMMARY
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Respondent filed a writ of error to the Circuit Court of Baltimore City (Maryland) from a decision of a criminal court that granted a writ of habeas corpus to petitioner mother that ordered respondent from detaining the mother's children and ordered the children from respondent's custody and delivered to the parent named in the petition.

OVERVIEW: The petition for the writ of habeas corpus was directed to defendant commanding him to produce the children alleging that they had been illegally arrested and were held in custody by him. The mother contended that a writ of error did not lie at common law upon a habeas corpus. The court held that a writ of error might have been brought in both criminal and civil cases, and had no particular power which gave it a wider range or greater effect than an appeal in the latter. However, the court further held that a decision on habeas corpus could not have been reviewed by writ of error because the decision was not a final judgment.

OUTCOME: The court dismissed the writ of error.

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) Samuel S. Coston v. Leah Coston, 1866, April Term no. 132, p. ??? [MSA S412-8, 1/66/14/39].

COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions) Samuel S. Coston v. Leah Coston, 1866, April Term no. 132 [MSA S393-23, 1/65/12/65].

COURT OF APPEALS (Briefs) Samuel S. Coston v. Leah Coston, 1866, April Term no. 132 [MSA S375-43, 1/64/13/11].

COURT OF APPEALS (Judgments) Samuel S. Coston v. Leah Coston, 1866, April Term no. 132 [MSA S381-63, 1/62/08/10].

Trial Court Records:

BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Docket A) Samuel Coston v. State of Maryland, 1865, 7A, p. 85 [MSA T55-7, 3/3/14/35].

BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Papers A) Samuel Coston v. State of Maryland, 1865, box no. 119 [MSA T53-135, 3/11/14/59].

CASE SUMMARY
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant appealed the sentence imposed by the Criminal Court of Baltimore City (Maryland) following his conviction for larceny.

OVERVIEW: Defendant was convicted of larceny and the criminal court sentenced him to confinement in the penitentiary for a period of 12 years and ordered that he serve and labor for said period. He appealed, contending that the order of service and labor was illegal, which rendered the sentence void, and for the further reason that the sentence omitted any reference to restitution as required by statute. The court affirmed the sentence, finding that the order of service and labor did not violate the sentence for larceny as established by Md. Ann. Code art. 30, § 98. That statute prescribed a period of incarceration for larceny but made no mention of service and labor. The court held that the sentence under art. 30, § 98 established the term of imprisonment while Md. Ann. Code art. 73, § 37 permitted the imposition of service and labor during the period of incarceration. That portion of Md. Ann. Code art. 30, § 98 that pertained to restitution was merely declaratory of the victim's rights the property stolen and formed no part of the sentence proper, so omitting restitution from the sentence did not render it void.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the sentence imposed against defendant following his conviction for larceny.

Appellate Court Records:

COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) William Isaacs v. State of Maryland, 1865, April Term no. 137, p. 311 [MSA S412-8, 1/66/14/39].

COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions) William Isaacs v. State of Maryland, 1865, April Term no. 137 [MSA S393-21, 1/65/12/63].

COURT OF APPEALS (Briefs) William Isaacs v. State of Maryland, 1865, April Term no. 137 [MSA S375-39, 1/64/13/8].

COURT OF APPEALS (Judgments) William Isaacs v. State of Maryland, 1865, April Term no. 137 [MSA S381-157, 1/62/11/13].

Trial Court Records:

BALTIMORE CITY CRIMINAL COURT (Criminal Docket) State v. Isaacs, 1863, September Term no. 19, p. 4 [MSA C1849-24, 3/29/14/45].

BALTIMORE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT (Criminal Removal Docket) State v. Isaacs, 1863, p. 78-79 [MSA C319-2, 2/49/12/28].