Back River Neck Turnpike Co. v. Homberg
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County (Fowler, C. J., Burke, J.) The Act of 1894, ch. 607, is unconstitutional because it does not require that notice of the proceedings therunder be given.
Read the full summary
Appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County (Fowler, C. J., Burke, J.) The Act of 1894, ch. 607, is unconstitutional because it does not require that notice of the proceedings therunder be given. Prior to the general incorporation law, chapter 471, of the Act of 1868, turnpike companies were incorporated by special acts, in almost all of which a remedy is given, where the company chartered did not keep its road in the condition reqnired by law ; and eveiy Act containing such a remedy, savé two, requires notice of its enforcement to be first given. In this brief is a list of…
1Opinion of the CourtBriscoe, J.
The appellant is a body corporate duly incorporated, under the Public General Laws of the State, under the corporate name of The Back River Neck Turnpike Company of Baltimore County, for the purpose of making and constructing a turnpike road, in the Twelfth Election District of Baltimore County, not to exceed in length twelve miles.
On the 10th day of April, 1902, the appellees residents of Baltimore County filed a petition in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, under sec. 242 of Art. 23, of the Code of Public General Laws, as amended by ch. 607 of the Acts of 1894, alleging among other…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Smith v. GoldsboroughCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1894
- Williamsport & Hagerstown Turnpike Co. v. StartzmanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1897