Home/Court of Appeals of Maryland/Welch v. Byerly

Welch v. Byerly

132 A. 616, 150 Md. 107
CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
DecidedMarch 5, 1926
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 132 A. 616 (Welch v. Byerly) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Welch v. Byerly, 132 A. 616, 150 Md. 107 (Md. 1926).

Opinion

Pattison, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This Court is called upon in this case to review the action of the lower court.in overruling exceptions to, and in ratifying, a sale made by a trustee under a mortgage of a lot of land, lying and being in the City of Baltimore, the ground of the exceptions, briefly stated, being that the property at such sale brought an inadequate price because of the alleged insufficiency of the advertisement under which it was sold.

The property covered by the mortgage, consisting of about sixteen acres of undeveloped land, is located between PTorth Avenue and Liberty Heights Avenue, adjoining on the north and east the property of Alexander Bfown, known as Mondawmin, and on the south the property of Wm. H. Buckler; and near it on the west is the Western Maryland Bailroad.

It is shown from the record that on the 25th day of April, 1911, the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore passed an ordinance, known as Ordinance PTo. 678, authorizing and directing the Commissioners for Opening Streets to “condemn and open Gwynns Palis Parkway * * * from the intersection formed by the southwesternmost side of Liberty Heights Avenue (formerly Old Liberty Boad) and the southwesternmost side of Beisterstown Turnpike Boad to the outline of the land conveyed to the' Mayor and City Council of Baltimore by John B. Boberts, etc.” This avenue when opened would pass from west to east through the northern section of the mortgaged property, known as the Boston Pear Home Place, which will hereafter be designated *109 as the “Eear Property,” and also through the property of Alexander Brown before reaching Liberty Heights Avenue. Mr. Brown opposed the opening of the avenue- through his property as laid down by said ordinance, and nothing further was done until July 14th, 1916, when the Mayor and -City Council passed two ordinances, Hos. 169 and 170. The first of these closed that part of the avenue, laid down by Ordinance Ho. 678, which passed through the Brown property and for a part of the distance through the Eear property; while Ordinance Ho. 170 relocated the parkway through the Brown property, north of its original location, and for a part of the way through the Eear property.

On May 18th, 1923, a third ordinance was passed, known as Ho. 916, authorizing and directing the Commissioners for Opening Streets “to condemn, open and grade Gwynns E’alls Parkway * * * from Pennsylvania Avenue to Gwynns Falls Parkway as now condemned.” This avenue when opened would pass through the extreme southern part of the Fear property.

On February 7th, 1924, a further ordinance was passed, known as Ordinance Ho. 92. By this ordinance the Commissioners for Opening Streets were authorized and directed to close that part of Gwynns Falls Parkway which was to be opened under tbe first ordinance (Ordinance Ho. 678) from the point of its intersection, on the west, with the avenue to be opened under Ordinance Ho. 916, to the Eear property.

Upon the closing of such part of Gwynns Fails Parkway, laid down under Ordinance Ho. 678, the said parkway was left without an outlet on the west. The closing of such part of it, it seems, was done to avoid going under the railroad in two places, one upon each of said parkways, as laid down by the ordinances mentioned, and with the idea' of connecting the northern with the southern parkway over the Fear property as disclosed by the plat on page 97 of the record, which the reporter is asked to insert in his report of this case. But nothing has been done, so far as the record discloses, towards relocating said northern parkway so as to

*110 eDjRf07yLGsooDnZyEVdvmcUFUM770Xx9fvTyfk

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

Related

Sawyer v. Novak
110 A.2d 517 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2001)
Hardy v. Gibson
133 A.2d 401 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1957)
Ivrey v. Karr
34 A.2d 847 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1943)
Preske v. Carroll
16 A.2d 291 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1940)
Harvey v. Provident Savings Bank
184 A. 228 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1936)
Hogan v. Hester Investment Co.
241 N.W. 881 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1932)
Kres v. Hornstein
155 A. 171 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
132 A. 616, 150 Md. 107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/welch-v-byerly-md-1926.