The Baltimore and Susquehanna Railroad Company, Plaintiff In Error v. Alexander Nesbit and Penelope Goodwin

• Decision Date: 01 December 1850
• Citation: 10 How. 395,51 U.S. 395,13 L.Ed. 469
• Parties: THE BALTIMORE AND SUSQUEHANNA RAILROAD COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. ALEXANDER NESBIT AND PENELOPE D. GOODWIN
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

51 U.S. 395 10 How. 395 13 L.Ed. 469 THE BALTIMORE AND SUSQUEHANNA RAILROAD COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. ALEXANDER NESBIT AND PENELOPE D. GOODWIN. December Term, 1850

THIS case was brought up from Baltimore County Court by a writ of error issued under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act.

The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court, to which the reader is referred.

It was argued by Mr. Campbell and Mr. Yellot, for the plaintiff in error, and Mr. Johnson, for the defendants in error.

The counsel for the plaintiff in error made the following points:——

1st. That the charter was a contract between the state of Maryland and the railroad company, and that the act of 1841, which varies the terms of that contract without the company's assent, is a law impairing the obligation of the contract, and therefore unconstitutional and void. Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheat., 84; Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Id., 647, 663, 668, 669, 699, 710, 711, 712.

2d. That the title to the land condemned having vested by the confirmation of the inquisition, and the tender of the money anterior to the action by the Baltimore County Court, under the

Page 396

act of 1841, that act is unconstitutional, because it divests vested rights, and in this way impairs the obligations of contracts.

Mr. Johnson contended,——

That there is nothing of the character of a contract in the charter, that, by the Constitution of the United States, deprives the legislature of the state of the power to order a re-hearing of the case. Satterlee v. Matthewson, 2 Pet., 380; Livingston's Lessee v. Moore et al., 7 Id., 469; Wilkinson v. Leland, 2 Id., 627; S. C., 10 Id., 294; Watson v. Mercer, 8 Id., 88; Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 11 Id., 420.

Mr. Justice DANIEL delivered the opinion of the court.

This case comes before us from the District of Maryland, upon a writ of error to the court of Baltimore County, prosecuted under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act.

The facts from which the questions to be adjudged arise are the following:——

The legislature of Maryland, by a law of the 18th of February, 1828, incorporated the plaintiff in error by the name and style of the Baltimore and Susquehanna Railroad Company, for the purpose of constructing a railroad from the city of Baltimore to some point or points on the Susquehanna River. To enable this company to acquire such land, earth, timber, or other materials as might be necessary for the construction and repairing of the road, the law above mentioned, by its fifteenth section, authorized the company to agree with the owners of the land and other materials wanted, for the purchase or use thereof; and in the event that the company could not agree with the owners, or that the owners were femes covert under age, insane, or out of the county, this section provided that a justice of the peace of the county, upon application, should thereupon issue his warrant to the sheriff to summon a jury, who, in accordance with the directions contained in the same section of the statute, should value the damages which the owner or owners would sustain, and that the inquisition, signed and sealed by the jury, should be returned by the sheriff to the clerk or prothonotary of his county, to be filed in court, and that the same should be confirmed by said court at its next session, if no sufficient cause to the contrary be shown.

The section further provides, that 'such valuation, when paid or tendered to the owner or owners of said property, or to his, her, or their legal representatives, shall entitle the company to the estate and interest in the same thus valued, as

Page 397

fully as if it had been conveyed by the owner or owners of the same; and the valuation, if not received when tendered, may at any time thereafter be recovered from the company without costs by the said owner or owners, his, her, or their legal representatives.'

It appears that, under the authority of the statute above cited, an inquisition was (upon the application of the plaintiff in error) held by the sheriff of Baltimore County, on the 13th of December, 1836, upon the lands of the...