Bushey v. State Roads Commission

Decision Date20 March 1963
Docket NumberNo. 196,196
Citation231 Md. 154,189 A.2d 98
PartiesJohn S. BUSHEY et al. v. STATE ROADS COMMISSION of Maryland.
CourtMaryland Court of Appeals

William B. Dulany, Westminister, for appellants.

J. Thomas Nissel, Sp. Atty., Baltimore (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., Joseph D. Buscher, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore, and E. O. Weant, Jr., Sp. Atty., Westiminister, on the brief), for appellee.

Before BRUNE, C. J., and HAMMOND, PRESCOTT, HORNEY, and MARBURY JJ.

PRESCOTT, Judge.

The Circuit Court for Carroll County dismissed an appeal to that court by property owners from an award of the Board of Property Review (Board), on the ground that the appeal had not been taken within the statutory period of thirty days after the award. Code (1957), Article 89B, § 18; Volz v. State Road Commission, 221 Md. 209, 214, 156 A.2d 671.

The appellant poses two questions: (1) 'Did appellants' verbal advices of objection to the award of the Board of Property Review to a member thereof and to appellee within 30 days, meet the statutory requirements so as to entitle them to have their lands condemned and valued in the proper court under the normal proceedings for eminent domain?'; and (2), Is the appellee precluded from denying appellants a condemnation suit by virtue 'of the actions and inactions' of appellee and the Board, causing appellants to believe that action to assure on ordinary condemnation proceeding had been taken?

The two questions may be considered together. Appellants are the owners of property in Carroll County through which appellee desired to construct a highway. On June 22, 1961, appellee filed its plats or maps, and deposited with the clerk of court its check for the benefit of appellants in the amount of $4,610 for the land to be taken. Appellants did not agree with the figure of $4,610 as being the fair value of the property; whereupon the matter, in accordance with the statute, was referred to the Board. After hearing before said Board, an award of $6,500 was made by it, on August 16, 1961. On September 5, 1961, Richard L. Schindel, Senior Right of Way Agent of the appellee, called upon appellants and informed them that appellee had accepted said award. They told Schindel they were dissatisfied with the award. Schindel then, according to appellants, told them to send a letter of objection to appellee's Baltimore office, without specifying any time within which it should be sent. Schindel, on the other hand, testified that he informed the appellants that they had to appeal in writing within 30 days after the award; and C. Rogers Hall, Chairman of the Board of Property Review, testified that he informed the appellants of their right to appeal within 30 days of the award.

On September 22, 1961, more than 30 days after August 16, appellants addressed a letter to appellee's Baltimore office stating they were dissatisfied with the award. On October 25, Schindel again called upon appellants and informed them their appeal had not been taken within the time prescribed by law. In March of 1962, appellants filed a 'petition and order for appeal' in the Circuit Court for Carroll County, which, as noted above, was dismissed, and this appeal followed.

This states all of the pertinent facts except appellants claim that John S. Bushey, one of the appellants, contacted a certain Mr. Brett, a member of the Board, and told him that he (Bushey) was dissatisfied with the award. Then, without stating anything that Brett said, Bushey testified that he concluded, from this conversation, that the appellee would proceed with the usual condemnation proceedings. And one of the appellants testified that after appellants had been notified their appeal had been taken too late, he telephoned a member of the State Roads Commission and asked him 'if he could take care of the case for us...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Ruby v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • September 1, 1997
    ...is not a matter of discretion; however, it must be conferred by statute, rule, or constitutional provision. Bushey v. State Roads Commission, 231 Md. 154, 157, 189 A.2d 98 (1963). There is no reservation in the Maryland Rules, or elsewhere, authorizing a trial court to extend the time withi......
  • Montgomery Cnty. v. Soleimanzadeh
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • December 23, 2013
    ...abide by the governing rules of procedure applicable before the matter is submitted to a jury. For example, in Bushey v. State Roads Commission, 231 Md. 154, 189 A.2d 98 (1963), the property owners, dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the review board, failed to comply w......
  • State Roads Commission v. O'Boyle
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • July 3, 1968
    ...of the Board of Property Review. This distinction is crucial and we feel it places this case under the holding in Bushey v. State Roads Commission, 231, Md. 154 (189 A.2d 98). 'In the Bushey case the Circuit Court of Carroll County dismissed an appeal to that Court by property owners from a......
  • Eggert v. Montgomery County Council
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • October 20, 1971
    ...parties cannot supply a non-existent jurisdiction by consent. See Price v. Hobbs, 47 Md. 359 (1877). See also Bushey v. State Roads Commission, 231 Md. 154, 189 A.2d 98 (1963); 4A C.J.S. Appeal and Error § 458b, p. The order of February 9, 1971, denying the Petition for Rehearing or for Rec......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT