Baltimore Traction Co. v. Baltimore Belt Railroad

Supreme Court

Baltimore Traction Co. v. Baltimore Belt Railroad

151 U.S. 137, 14 S. Ct. 294, 38 L. Ed. 102, 1894 U.S. LEXIS 2041

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedJanuary 8, 1894

Docket994

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 151 U.S. 137 (Baltimore Traction Co. v. Baltimore Belt Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baltimore Traction Co. v. Baltimore Belt Railroad, 151 U.S. 137, 14 S. Ct. 294, 38 L. Ed. 102, 1894 U.S. LEXIS 2041 (1894).

Pincite

Opinion

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 U.S. 137, 14 S. Ct. 294, 38 L. Ed. 102, 1894 U.S. LEXIS 2041, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baltimore-traction-co-v-baltimore-belt-railroad-scotus-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack