Volume 15 — Maryland Reports

This was a scire facias upon the following mechanics’ lien, filed in the court below, by the appellee, on the 3rd of November 1854. “Samuel Winter., vs. William G. W. Jaeger. — In the Superior Court of Baltimore City.

oijPleas,, This action, was brought in May 185,6, by the appellees, against the appellants, to recover damages for an injury done to the plaintiffs’ horse, occasioned by the digging of a trench in Carden street, in the city of Baltimore, into which the horse fell, and was thereby so crippled as to become worthless» Rlea, not guilty. Exception. The facts of the case as disclosed by the evidence axe fully stated in the opinion of this court.

This appeal was taken from an order of the court below, (Krebs, J.,) dissolving an injunction which had been granted upon a bill filed, on the 16th of July 1857, by the appellants against the appellee. The facts of the case, so far as necessary to explain the decision now made, are stated in the opinion of this court.

This appeal is taken from an order of the court below, (Krebs, J.,) granting an injunction upon a bill filed by the appellees against the appellant. The facts under which the injunction was granted, are stated in the opinion of this court.

The appellant (Thompson) in the latter part of 1856, obtained several small judgments against Thomas Frist, upon the separate and individual debts of Frist, and on these judgments writs, of ft. fa. were issued and levied upon the partnership effects pf the firm of Frist & Fowler composed of said Frist and John W. Fowler-.

Assumpsit brought on the 2nd of March 1854, by the appellee against the appellant. The declaration alleges that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $963.71, for work and labor done and materials furnished. It also contains counts for goods sold, money had and received, upon an account stated, and for sundry matters properly chargeable in account, as by a particular account filed, appears. Plea non assumpsit. Exception.

The bill in this case was filed on the 14th of April 1854, by the appellee against the appellants, and Win. E. Murphy, and James Hooper, to vacate and annul a sale of the steamer J ewess, made by Whittington & Hooper, on the 1st of March 1854.

Covenant brought ou the 8th of September 1849, by the appellee against the appellant upon a fire insurance policy issued by the appellant to Evans upon a stock of goods and shop fixtures in a store in Winchester, Virginia. Pica non infregit. This is the second appeal in the case. The former appeal is reported in 9 Md. Rep., 1, she loss by fire occurred on the 20th of March 1849, and on the next day Evans assigned the policy to Riley.

Attachment on judgment issued at the instance of the appellant-, -on the 2clrd of Nove'mb'ei-1855, arid on the next day laid in the hands of Eichelberger and Trust, as garnishees of Muncks, the judgment debtor. Plea nulla bona.

Cross-appeals from the equity side of the Circuit Court for Somerset county.

This suit was brought on the 1st of January 185T, by the appellees, trading' under the firm of John Williams & Son, as endorsees and holders, against the appellant as drawer, of a bill of exchange for $1800.92, at thirty clays, dated Charleston, S. C., June 22nd, 1854, in favor of Williams, Butler & Co., upon S. D, Tonge & Co., Baltimore Maryland, and by said Williams, Butler & Go., endorsed to the plaintiffs.

Appeal, from the Circuit Court for Cecil county. Ejectment for a tract of land, called “Home Place,” brought on the 3d of August 1852, by the appellant against the appellee.

It appears from the record in this case that by the Act of' 1853, ch. 191, the appellee was authorised to make a lateral road from its main stem to tide water, and for that purpose to exercise all the powers given in its original charter, (Act of 1827, ch. 72,) and its supplements.

Appeals from the Equity side of the Circuit Court for Baltimore county. These appeals are taken from 'orders of the court below, (Price, J.,) granting injunctions upon bills filed, the one on tbe 16th of February 1858, and the other on tbe 24th of May 1859, by the appellees against the appellants. The allegations of the bills and the purport of the injunctions are sufficiently stated in tbe opinion of this court.

Appeals from the Circuit Court for Allegany county. These suits were brought by the State upon the bonds of Lloyd B. Smith, as collector of the State tax for Allegany county, for the years 1854 and 1855. The defendants, the sureties on the bonds, plead that they had been released by the Act of 1858, ch. 286.

The plaintiff in error (a free negro) was indicted for the larceny “of one mouseline-de-laine «dress, of the valpe of two dollars, current money, and one muslin skirt of the value ■of one dollar, current money.” Upon a verdict of guilty ■the court (Stump, J.) sentenced the convict to “be sold at public auction, by the sheriff, for the period of two years and :six months from date, as a slave, out of the State, according to the provisions of the Act of 1858, cb. 324.” To…

Debt brought, on the 30th of August 1856, by the appellee1 against the appellant, upon a bond of indemnity, given by the defendant to the plaintiff,, in the penalty of $2000, dated the 3rd of December 1853, and in which are the following recitals.and conditions: “Whereas, the above bounden Thomas Creamer, by deed bearing even date with these presents, hath conveyed to said Stephenson a certain tract of land, situated on the Tide Water canal in Harford county, and hath…

Trespass on the case, brought on the 14th of August 1856, by the appellee against the appellant, to recover damages for piling wood and plank across the end of West Falls Avenue, in Baltimore city, and thereby obstructing the business of the plaintiff, who kept several small boats for hire, and transported passengers and freight from the end of said avenue to various points within the harbor of said city.

Asswnvpsit brought, on the 28th of August 1855, by the appellee, as endorsee, against the appellant, as endorser, of two bills of exchange., both drawn by James Kent on J. J. Speed, of Baltimore, and by him accepted, one for $1000, dated Annapolis, March- 31st, 1852, at five months, payable to the order of the defendant, and by him endorsed to the plaintiffs, the other for $285, dated Portland Manor, May 7th, 1852, at six months, payable to the order of Thos.

By the Act, of 1853, ch. 376, entitled “An Act for supplying the City of Baltimore with pure water,” the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore were authorized to contract, and agree with the owners, to purchase and “hold in fee-simple, or for a term of years, any land, real estate, spring, brook, water and water-course, which they may conceive expedient and necessary for the purpose of conveying water into the said city: for the use of the said city, and for the heálth and…

Common Pleas. Trespass on the case, brought on the 1st of August 1856, by the appellee against the appellant, who was the clerk of the Lexington market, to recover damages for deprivipg the plaintiff, with force and violence, of a street stand on Paca street in said market, and putting another party in possession thereof, which said stand, the plaintiff claimed, had been rented by him from Baltimore city, from the 1st of May 1856, to the 1st of May 1857.

Appear from the Circuit Court for Baltimore city. • The bill in. this case filed on the 26th of May 1856, by the appellant against the appellees, alleges that the complainant, on the 24th of September 1853, rented certain parts of “Washington Hall,” in the city of Baltimore, to Rullman, and on the 1st of April 1855, there being due him $1300 for rent, he issued a distress, and the effects distrained were replevied by Rullman. on the 12th of April 1855, who gave Voikmar and…

Appkai. from the Circuit Court for Baltimore/city. Held: and before the deed was executed; they lived here, conducted business here, were his creditors specially interested in his affairs, and must be presumed to have had knowledge of the proceedings previously instituted 'by his creditors against him, for the purpose of preventing his giving preference to some of his creditors, for the…

84, drawn by John F. McJilton and endorsed by Edward Spedden, Samuel Brown, and W. T. Walters & Co. The note is dated “Baltimore, Feb. 1857,” payable at four months, to blank order. The plaintiffs, who constitute the firm of W. T. Walters & Co., placed the note in the Farmers and Planters Bank of Baltimore for collection, and, not being paid at maturity, it was duly protested. The facts of the case are fully stated in the opinion of this court.

Assumpsit, brought on the 10th of December 1855, by George Rost, the appellee’s intestate, against the appellant., a beneficial societ}'', incorporated under the Act of 1852, ch. 231, to recover benefits alleged to be due him by the society of which he was a member. The plaintiff received a verdict and judgment for $91, and the defendant appealed.

in this case an action of assumpsit was brought at May term 1855, of the court below, by the appellant, Whiting, against the appellee, on a policy of insurance, made by the defendant, on the 16th of March. 1854, to the amount of §7400, on the barque £íA. A. Drebert,” valued in the policy at §22,000.

By .Rcsoiution No. 4, of the Legislature of 1858, it was resolved: “That His Excellency, tbe Governor, be, and hois hereby authorized and required to cause such proceedings to be instituted as may be necessary to obtain tbe opinion of ■tbe judges of the Court of Appeals of Maryland, whether the annual appropriation made by the 19th section of the Act •of 1784, chapter 37, of the sum of J?1750, current money, to be applied by tbe Visitors and Governors of St. John’s College,…

Appeals from the Superior Court of Baltimore city. Held: must be either a legislative or a constitutional tenure; and the questions to be considered are: first, what is the scope and extent of the authority of the General Assembly over the Mayor and City Council, with respect to these police powers as statutory, delegated powers, irrespective of the nineteenth section of the fourth Article…

„ Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas. This action was brought by the appellee against the appellant on the 24th of December 1856, to recover the value of services alleged to have been rendered by the plaintiff to the defendant, as its agent and broker, in effecting the sale of a quantity of old railroad iron belonging- to the defendant. Plea, not indebted as alleged. ■ Exception.

Appear from the Superior Court of Baltimore city. Assumpsit, brought on¡ the 21st of July 1855, by the appellee against the appellant. The not)'- contains the indebitatus counts, and a special count setting up an agreement between the defendant and the plaintiff, for the hire of the plaintiff for six months, from January 1st to July 1st, 1855, at $80(1, and that the plaintiff was wirongfully discharged by the defendant on the 1st of April 1855. Rlea non assumpsit.

Assumpsit brought on the 8th of July 1855, by the appellant against the appellees, for Work and labor done, and materials furnished by the plaintiff’s intestate for the defendants. Plea, non assumpsit. In the course of the trial, four exceptions Were tdken by the plaintiff to the rulings -of the court below, (Lee, J.,) all of which are fully stated in the opinion of this court. The verdict and judgment were in favor of the defendants, and the plaintiff appealed.

Appeals from the Circuit Court for Baltimore county. These appeals are taken from an order of the court below, (Price, J.,) setting aside certain sales of real estate in Baltimore, which had been mortgaged b.y Robert Howard to White and Elder. The sales were made under the Act of 1826, ch. 192, by T. Parkin Scott, as attorney, agent or trustee for .the mortgagees, and the appellant, Webb, 'was a purchase? of a part of the property sold.

<p>The Act pf 1826, ch. 192, relating to mortgages in the city and county of Baltimore, has not heen repealed by the adoption of the present Consti- - tution; it is still in force, and the Superior Court of Baltimore city has jurisdiction thereunder in case the mortgaged property is in that city.</p>

Appear from the Circuit Court for Baltimore city. The bill in this case, filed on the 8th of September 1856, by the appellants against the appellee, charges, that on the 9th of December 1851, the complainants noticed in the Baltimore Sun an advertisement for the sale of certain real estate in Baltimore county, called the “Ninevah Farm,” described as containing “about 482 acres of laud;” that tliey had no previous knowledge of the property, but on the afternoon of that day,…

This is the second appeal in this case. On the first appeal, reported in 8 Md. Rep., 107, the judgment was reversed and the cause remanded.

This appeal is taken from a judgment of the court below, (Lee, J.,) quashing an attachment on warrant issued on the 30th of October 1857, at the instance of the appellants against the appellee, as an absconding debtor. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion of this court.

An action of assumpsit was brought, on the 3rd of December 1857, by the appellant, the endorsee, against the appellees, executors of Wm.