Wilmington & Susquehanna Rail Road v. Condon

8 G. & J. 443
Court of Appeals of Maryland·Decided June 15, 1837·Published·Cited by 21 cases

Opinion

Doesey, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Before we examine into the correctness of the opinion of the county court, set forth in the bill of exceptions introduced into the record before us, a preliminary question presents itself for our determination, does an appeal lie to this court from the judgment of the county court in a case like the present. We are of opinion that it does not. There is no appeal expressly given to the court of Appeals, under the act of assembly, investing the county court with the power of reviewing and confirming, or setting aside inquisitions like the present. From the nature and course of their proceedings, this power of review is á fit subject for litigation in a county court, but is wholly inappropriate to the jurisdiction of this court. It is a special limited jurisdiction given to the county court, from the decision of which no appeal lies to any other tribunal. With as much propriety, might it be [449] contended that appeals would lie to this court from the judgments of the county court on warrant appeals relating to the recovery of small debts.

The appeal in this case is dismissed.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

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

Wilmington & Susquehanna Rail Road v. Condon, 8 G. & J. 443 (Md. 1837).

8 G. & J. 443 (Wilmington & Susquehanna Rail Road v. Condon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Zimmerman v. State
Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2025
Citizens Against Slots at the Mall v. PPE Casino Resorts Maryland, LLC
55 A.3d 496 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2012)
Murrell v. Mayor of Baltimore
829 A.2d 548 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2003)
Prince George's County v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.
747 A.2d 647 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2000)
Gisriel v. Ocean City Board of Supervisors of Elections
693 A.2d 757 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1997)
Cardinell v. State
644 A.2d 11 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1994)
Sugar v. North Baltimore Methodist Protestant Church
165 A. 703 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1933)
Stephens v. M. C. of Crisfield
89 A. 429 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1914)
New York Mining Co. v. Midland Mining Co.
58 A. 217 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1904)
Hopkins v. Philadelphia, Wilmington & Baltimore R. Co.
51 A. 404 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1902)
Margraff v. Cunningham's Heirs
57 Md. 585 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1882)
Cumberland & Pennsylvania Railroad v. Pennsylvania Railroad
57 Md. 267 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1881)
George's Creek Coal & Iron Co. v. New Central Coal Co.
40 Md. 425 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1874)
Cecil v. Rose
14 Md. 64 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1859)
Lammott v. Maulsby
8 Md. 5 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1855)
State v. Mister
5 Md. 11 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1853)
Hamilton v. Annapolis & Elk Ridge Rail Road
1 Md. 553 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1852)
Williams v. Williams
5 Gill 88 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1847)