City of Baltimore v. Rice

• Decision Date: 16 January 1891
• Citation: 21 A. 181,73 Md. 307
• Parties: MAYOR, ETC., OF BALTIMORE v. RICE.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

21 A. 181

73 Md. 307

MAYOR, ETC., OF BALTIMORE v. RICE.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

January 16, 1891

Appeal from Baltimore city court.

Argued before ALVEY, C.J., and IRVING, ROBINSON, BRYAN, BRISCOE MILLER, MCSHERRY, and FOWLER, JJ.

Wm. A. Hammond and Albert Ritchie, for appellant.

Isidor Rayner, for appellee.

BRYAN J.

In the return of their proceedings relative to the opening of Chase street, in the city of Baltimore, the commissioners awarded certain damages to Frederick Rice. He took an appeal to Baltimore city court, and the jury in their inquisition assessed his damages at $3,500. The mayor and city council of Baltimore appealed to this court from the rulings of the city court. Rice testified that he was the owner of a brick-yard which would be destroyed for all practical purposes by the opening of Chase street; that the yard was worth $4,000, and that, after the street should go through it, it would be worth nothing. The fee in the land belonged to the Carroll heirs, and Rice had been their tenant since 1885. The agent of the Carroll heirs gave him notice to quit on December 31, 1888, and made a new contract for the year 1889. He also gave him notice to quit on December 31, 1889, and made another contract of renting for the year 1890, at a different royalty. The agent testified that it was his intention to renew the tenancy, if the street had not been opened, and that he would have continued to renew it, as he had no trouble with Rice, and that he had no intention to remove him; that the Carrolls derived large revenues from these yards, and were perfectly satisfied to let the tenants remain as long as they had no trouble about the royalties paid by them; that a number of them had erected expensive improvements under their leases, and that he had no doubt that the expectation of a renewal adds largely to the marketable value of their interests; that these yards have been used in this way for half a century. There was other evidence that leases like Rice's had a marketable value, and that his interest in his brick-yard was worth $4,000, and that large amounts of money had been invested by the holders of these yards on the Carroll property under leases similar to Rice's, and that no tenant had ever been removed so long as he continued to pay his rent.

In this state no man's property can be taken for public use before he is paid the value of it. The evidence tended to show that Rice's...