clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search		 search for:
clear space
white space
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 2, Page 80   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

80 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
they shall have power to provide for granting appeals to Balti-
more City Court from the decisions of the commissioners, And
to secure to every person, interested in such decisions, the trial
by Jury, on application within a reasonable time. And the 9th
section of the ordinances of the city. No. 10, 1841, approved
on the 9th of March of that year, which is an ordinance for ex-
ercising the powers vested in the city, by the act of 1838, ch.
226, confers upon persons who may be dissatisfied with the
assessment of damages, or benefits, which may be made by the
commissioners, the right of appeal within a limited and reason-
able time to the judges of Baltimore City Court, and gives to
the said judges, power to hear and fully examine the subject,
and decide thereon; with a provision for summoning a jury, to
try any question of fact. And a similar provision in reference
to the right of appeal is made by the 9th section of the ordi-
nance, No. 69, of 1846.
The street in question was widened under ordinance No. 49
of 1846, which directs that the street commissioners shall pro-
ceed in all respects in the widening of the street, agreeably to
the provisions of the ordinance of the 9th of March, 1841, and
consequently the right of appeal to the City Court, secured by
the latter ordinance, might have been enjoyed by any person
conceiving himself aggrieved by the judgment of the commis-
sioners. It seems to me, that the remedy thus provided for
the examination and correction (if erroneous) of the proceed-
ings of the commissioners, should have been taken by these
complainants, and that they have no right, passing by that
remedy, to invoke the extraordinary power of a court of Chan-
cery, to interpose by way of injunction for their relief. The
injunction will consequently be dissolved.
T. P. SCOTT for Complainants.
BENJ. C. PRESSTMAN and J. MASON CAMPBELL for Defend-
ants.

  		clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 2, Page 80   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.

Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!

An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  Cannot perform flastmod(): Win32 Error Code = 2

Maryland State Archives