BALTIMORE TRACTION COMPANY
v.
BALTIMORE BELT RAILROAD COMPANY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Baltimore Traction Company challenged a Maryland condemnation statute on the ground that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment by allowing property to be taken without notice to the owner. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ of error after accepting the Maryland Court of Appeals' construction that the statute properly required notice to be given, thus eliminating the constitutional defect that formed the basis of the federal question.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
The Chief Justice:
These were proceedings in condemnation, commenced June 15, 1892, in accordance with section 167 of article 23 of the Code of Public General Laws of the State of Maryland, plaintiff in error appearing therein.
It was objected below that that section violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, in that the-owner of land condemned thereunder might be deprived of his property without due process of law because the act did not provide for any notice to him of the proceedings; but it had been previously decided bj^ the Court of Appeals of Maryland that the act, properly construed, required notice. Baltimore Belt Railway Co. v. Baltzell, 75 Maryland, 103.
We are bound to accept this conclusion of the state court as to the proper construction of the statute of the State. Green v. Neal, 6 Pet. 291; Davie v. Briggs, 97 U. S. 628; Louisville &c. Railway v. Mississippi, 133 U. S. 587, 590. At the time of these proceedings, therefore, notice was required. No suggestion is made that the validity of the statute was drawn in question as repugnant to the Constitution of the United States in any other particular, and as the want of requirement of notice did not exist, the alleged ground of our jurisdiction fails.
Writ of error dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Am. Steel & Wire Co. v. Speed, 192 U.S. 500 (U.S. 1904)
-
Collins v. The State of Tex., 223 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1912)
-
Ross v. State of Or., 227 U.S. 150 (U.S. 1913)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Davie v. Briggs, 97 U.S. 628 (U.S. 1878)
- Asa Green v. The Lessee of Henry Neal, 6 Pet. 291 (U.S. 1832)
- Louisville v. Mississippi, 133 U.S. 587 (U.S. 1890)