Cumberland Valley R. Co. v. Martin

• Decision Date: 12 January 1905
• Citation: 100 Md. 165,59 A. 714
• Parties: CUMBERLAND VALLEY R. CO. v. MARTIN et al.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

59 A. 714

100 Md. 165

CUMBERLAND VALLEY R. CO.

v. MARTIN et al.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Jan. 12, 1905.

Appeal from Circuit Court. Washington County; Wm. J. Witzenbacher, Judge.

Proceedings by Michael H. Martin and others for the opening of a public road. From a judgment of the circuit court, on appeal from the county commissioners, the Cumberland Valley Railroad Company, a counter petitioner, appeals. Reversed.

Argued before McSHERRY, C. J., and FOWLER, BRISCOE, BOYD, PEARCE, and SCHMUCKER, JJ.

George W. Smith, Jr., and J. Clarence Lane, for appellant.

Elias B. Hartle and W. H. A. Hamilton, for appellees.

BRISCOE, J. On the 17th of March, 1903, the appellees made application to the county commissioners for Washington county, under article 25 of the Code of Public General Laws, for the opening of a public road near Maugansville, in that county. Subsequently examiners were appointed to examine and determine whether the public convenience required the opening of a road as stated in the petition. On the 9th day of June, 1903, a return and report was submitted by the examiners, deciding that the public convenience of the neighborhood required a road to be opened, as shown by an annexed plat returned with the commission. Afterwards a counter petition was filed by the appellant, and after a hearing by the county commissioners the examiners' report was ratified and confirmed; and on appeal to the circuit court of Washington county a judgment was rendered for the defendants assessing the damages at $100 in favor of the appellant. From this judgment the appeal in this case has been taken.

At the trial of the case in the court below three exceptions were reserved by the appellant—two to the ruling of the court on the admissibility of evidence, and one to its rulings on the prayers. As it is apparent from an examination of the record in this case that the county commissioners of Washington county failed to comply with the requirements of the statute (section 83, art. 25, of the Code of Public General Laws) conferring jurisdiction upon the county commissioners of each county in the state to open public roads, it will not be necessary for us to consider the other questions raised on the record. It is admitted that this court could not review on appeal the action of the circuit court for Washington county, if that court had jurisdiction to enter the judgment appealed against, because a judgment of the circuit court on appeal from the county commissioners is final and conclusive, and no right of appeal is given by the statute. Greenland v. County Commissioners, 68 Md. 59, 11 Atl. 581. If, however, the county commissioners exceed the jurisdiction conferred by the statute, it is clear an appeal lies to this court...