Baltimore Traction Co. v. Baltimore Belt R. Co.,
Annotate this Case
151 U.S. 137 (1894)
- Syllabus |
U.S. Supreme Court
Baltimore Traction Co. v. Baltimore Belt R. Co., 151 U.S. 137 (1894)
Baltimore Traction Company v.
Baltimore Belt Railroad Company
Submitted December 11, 1893
Decided January 8, 1894
151 U.S. 137
ERROR TO THE BALTIMORE CITY COURT
A public act of the State of Maryland providing for the condemnation of land for the use of a railroad company was held by the Court of Appeals of that state to require notice to the owner of the land proposed to be condemned, when properly construed. Held that this Court had no jurisdiction over a writ of error to a court of that state when the only error alleged was the want of such notice, which, it was charged, invalidated the proceedings as repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.
Motion to dismiss. The case is stated in the opinion.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE.
These were proceedings in condemnation, commenced June 15, 1892, in accordance with section 167 of article 23 of the Code of Public General Laws of the State of Maryland, plaintiff in error appearing therein.
It was objected below that that section violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States in that the owner of land condemned thereunder might be deprived of his property without due process of law because the act did not provide for any notice to him of the proceedings; but it had been previously decided by the Court of Appeals of Maryland that the act, properly construed, required notice. Baltimore Belt Railway Co. v. Baltzell, 75 Md. 103.
We are bound to accept this conclusion of the state court as to the proper construction of the statute of the state. Green v. Neal, 6 Pet. 291; Davie v. Briggs, 97 U. S. 628; Louisville &c. Railway v. Mississippi, 133 U. S. 590. At the time of these proceedings, therefore, notice was required. No suggestion is made that the validity of the statute was drawn in question as repugnant to the Constitution of the United States in any other particular, and as the want of requirement of notice did not exist, the alleged ground of our jurisdiction fails.
Writ of error dismissed.