Northern Cent. Ry. Co. v. Canton Co. of Baltimore

• Decision Date: 25 April 1866
• Parties: THE NORTHERN CENTRAL RAILWAY COMPANY v. THE CANTON COMPANY OF BALTIMORE.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

24 Md. 500

THE NORTHERN CENTRAL RAILWAY COMPANY v. THE CANTON COMPANY OF BALTIMORE.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

April 25, 1866

Appeal from the Superior Court of Baltimore City:

The appellee instituted an action of trespass q. c. f. against the appellant in the Superior Court of Baltimore, and by consent of the parties the case was referred under rule of the said court to I. Nevitt Steele, Esq., as referee. While the matter was pending before the arbitrator, the defendant instituted proceedings in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, and procured an injunction from that court, restraining the plaintiff from proceeding with said reference. The plaintiff having filed an answer to the bill, took an appeal from the order granting the injunction, and filed an appeal bond, which was approved.

The arbitrator, treating the appeal as a suspension of the injunction, was proceeding with the arbitration when the defendant filed in the Superior Court the following motion to wit:

"The defendant moves for a rule on the arbitrator, to whom this case has been referred, to stay further proceedings under said reference until the further order of this court, upon the ground that an injunction has issued out of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City to restrain the plaintiff from its prosecution, and that the appeal taken by the plaintiff in this cause from the order granting said injunction, is now pending and to be heard at the ensuing June term of the Court of Appeals."

The plaintiff having filed its reasons why this rule should not be granted, the court (Martin, J.,) passed the following order.

"In this case the rule to show cause must be discharged. As soon as the cause was referred under a rule of court, in conformity with the 1st section of the 7th Article of the Code, all jurisdiction over the case was transferred to the arbitrator, as a personal tribunal, selected by the parties themselves, and the court in which the suit originated lost all control over it, except for the purpose of reinstating it under the 5th section of the 7th Article, or of setting aside the answer, when it was returned, for errors apparent on its face, or for some matter of fraud, imposition or surprise aliunde the award. And for this reason the injunction granted by the Circuit Court was addressed to the referee and not to this tribunal. An appeal bond having been given by the Canton Company in the equity suit, as authorized by the Code, the case is to be treated as if no injunction had been issued. 11 Md. 365. And as this court has no power over the arbitrator in the present position of the case, the rule to show cause is discharged."

The arbitrator thereupon filed his award, which was excepted to by the defendant for the following reasons:

1. "For that while the said cause was pending before the said referee and before the same was brought to a final hearing before him, and before any award had been made or rendered by him, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, a court of competent jurisdiction in equity, on a bill of complaint filed therein by said defendant, had passed an order restraining and enjoining the said plaintiff from further proceeding with the said cause, before said arbitrator referee, until the further order of said Circuit Court for Baltimore City, which said order of said court was duly served on said plaintiff and its attorneys, on 29th day of April, 1863, and of which order the referee on the same day, had due and final notice.

That said order of injunction has never yet been dissolved, but that notwithstanding said order of injunction, and the protest of the said defendant to said referee made, the said referee did after full notice of said order, and in violation thereof, proceed with and to hear said cause and determine the same, and made the award so as aforesaid, filed in this cause on the 5th day of June, 1863.

2. For that after the service of said order of injunction on said defendant and its attorneys, and notice thereof to said referee as aforesaid, and before the final hearing of said cause before said referee had taken place, and before said award had been made, the said plaintiff appealed from the order of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, on the 6th day of May, 1863, to the Court of Appeals of Maryland, which said cause stood for hearing at the June Term, 1863, of said court, and was assigned for hearing on the first day of said term, and was heard and argued by the attorneys of said plaintiff, and of said defendant, at said time, and was thereupon submitted to said Court of Appeals, and before any award had been filed in this cause, or any notice of said award served on the defendant or its attorney; all of which proceedings relating to said appeal were with the full knowledge of the said referee.

That notwithstanding the pendency of the said cause in the Court of Appeals on said appeal, and which appeal was taken to test, and the decision wherein will test whether the said referee should or could go on with said reference, and render an award in said causes, or whether the matters in litigation in said cause were not exclusively for a Court of Equity jurisdiction; and notwithstanding said cause had been heard in the said Court of Appeals, and was then in the breast of the court,...