The claim made in the court below that the provision in the
Constitution of Maryland which abridged the right of trial by jury
in the courts of the City of Baltimore, without making a similar
provision for the counties of the state denied to litigants of the
city the equal protection of the laws, is not tenable.
The record does not contain the petition for the removal of this
case from the state court to the Circuit Court of the United
States, nor disclose the grounds on which it was founded, and this
Court does not pass upon the question whether the state court lost
jurisdiction by reason of it.
This cause was argued with Nos. 91 and 92, preceding it. The
case is stated in the opinion.
MR. JUSTICE McKENNA delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an action at law brought by plaintiff in error against
defendant in error and another for causes growing out of the
matters sued on in No. 92. Here, as in No. 92, there was a series
of motions which we do not think it is necessary to notice.
The case, on the appeal of plaintiff in error, reached and was
passed on by the Court of Appeals of the state, and to its judgment
affirming that of the lower court, this writ of error is
directed.
The judgment must be affirmed.
Claims under the Constitution of the United States were set
Page 172 U. S. 475
up in several of the motions and denied by the court. One claim
was that the Constitution of Maryland abridged the right of trial
by jury in the courts of Baltimore City without making a similar
provision for the counties of the state, and that this denies to
litigants of the city the equal protection of the laws. This is not
tenable.
Missouri v. Lewis, 101 U. S.
22;
Hayes v. Missouri, 120 U. S.
68.
The other claim was that the state courts lost jurisdiction by
reason of the pendency of a petition filed under ยง 641, Revised
Statutes, to remove the case to the United States circuit court.
The petition for removal is not in the record, and we only know
that it was filed by reason of the recital in other motions and its
notice in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, and the grounds of
it do not appear in any part of the record.
In all other matters, the judgment of the Court of Appeals
depends on questions of state practice and state laws.
Judgment affirmed.