William Reddall, Plaintiff In Error v. William Bryan, Alfred Rives, William Piles, John Cameron, James Paine, Charles Hutchinson, and John Moore
| Decision Date | 01 December 1860 |
| Parties | WILLIAM C. REDDALL, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. WILLIAM H. BRYAN, ALFRED L. RIVES, WILLIAM H. PILES, JOHN CAMERON, JAMES PAINE, CHARLES HUTCHINSON, AND JOHN MOORE |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
THIS case was brought up from the Court of Appeals of Maryland by a writ of error issued under the 25th section of the Judiciary act.
The case is stated in the opinion of the court, and is reported in 14th Maryland Reports, pages 470, 471.
It was argued by Mr. John S. Tyson and Mr. Mayer for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. Stanton (Attorney General) for the defendants.
This is a writ of error to revise the decree of the Court of Appeals of Maryland, affirming a decree of the Circuit Court for Montgomery county, in that State.
This case, as it appears on the record, is this:
The bill in equity of the plaintiff in error, filed in the Circuit Court for Montgomery county, in Maryland, alleges that the defendants have trespassed on land of his in Montgomery county, in Maryland, digging it up and erecting abutments and structures for an aqueduct, and so breaking up and dividing the land as to render it incapable of tillage, and inflicting great and irreparable damage upon the complainant; and that the defendants meditate, for completing the aqueduct, still further damage, of the same aggravated character, to the land, by digging to great depths of twelve to fifteen feet, and at other points raising embankments and building walls, and in conducting through the land a large and constant stream of water, for the sole use of the aqueduct.
The bill further states that the defendants claim to thus act under authority of the Executive of the United States, unsanctioned, however, as the bill alleges, by any action of Congress, and for supplying water to the cities of Washington and Georgetown, and under color of an act of the Legislature of Maryland, (session of the year 1853, chapter 179,) purporting to authorize the United States 'to purchase land in Maryland for so supplying water, through construction of dams, reservoirs, buildings, and other works,' and in case of sale not being agreed by owners, to allow the United States to adversely appropriate to herself the land, by condemnation and on valuation, to be effected in manner as provided in case of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company's occasions for land and materials for that company's works.
The bill also avers that no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Dreos, Crim. No. 23812.
...has been cited or found, but an aqueduct carrying water to the District of Columbia, Reddall v. Bryan, 14 Md. 444, 478, appeal dismissed 24 How. 420, national cemeteries, Wills v. State, 50 Tenn. 141; steamship piers, United States v. Mayor and Council of City of Hoboken, D.C., 29 F.2d 932;......
-
Brannan v. Harrison
...herein is dismissed. Louisiana Navigation Co. Ltd., v. Oyster Commission, 226 U. S. 99, 101, 33 S. Ct. 78, 57 L. Ed. 138; Reddall v. Bryan, 24 How. 420, 16 L. Ed. 740; Bruce v. Tobin, 245 U. S. 18, 19, 38 S. Ct. 7, 62 L. Ed. 123; Verden v. Coleman, 18 How. 86, 15 L. Ed. 272; Moses v. The Ma......
-
State of Missouri Carey v. Andriano
...Gordon v. Caldcleugh, 3 Cranch, 268; Strader v. Baldwin, 9 How. 261; Burke v. Gaines, 19 How. 388; Hale v. Gaines, 22 How. 144; Reddall v. Bryan, 24 How. 420; and Ryan v. Thomas, 4 Wall. None of the cases cited by the relator involve the question here presented, and the writ of error must b......
-
James Porter and Others, Plaintiffs In Error v. Bushrod Foley
... ... 10 and November 26, 1823, by which William Porter was authorized to sell and convey certain ... The counsel for plaintiff objected to the admission of the deed made in ... ...