Back River Neck Turnpike Co. v. Homberg

Briscoe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant is a body corporate duly incorporated, under the Public General Laws of the State, under the corporate name of The Back River Neck Turnpike Company of Baltimore County, for the purpose of making and constructing a turnpike road, in the Twelfth Election District of Baltimore County, not to exceed in length twelve miles. On the 10th day of April, 1902, the appellees residents of Baltimore County filed a petition in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, under sec. 242 of Art. 23, of the Code of Public General Laws, as amended by ch. 607 of the Acts of 1894, alleging among other things that the Turnpike Company had failed to keep and maintain its road stoned or otherwise made of hard material to a depth of twelve inches or to a width of fifteen feet as required by its charter, but had negligently permitted the road to become full of holes and to become practically unfit for use and travel by the public, contrary to law. It was further alleged by the petition that travel on said turnpike, by reason of its condition, was rendered uncomfortable and dangerous, and that such conditions had been permitted to remain for a period of time, exceeding fifteen days before filing of the complaint, and the prayer of the petition, was for relief under the laws of the State.

The record shows that an inquisition was had and on the 28th day of April, 1902, was returned to the Circuit Court of Baltimore County, as provided by the statute and from an order of the Court overruling a motion to quash and confirm ⁴³⁶ ing the inquisition of the jury, and directing that tolls shall not be charged, until the turnpike road shall be put in 'good order and repair and properly widened, this appeal has been taken. The sole question in the case relates to the validity and constitutionality of the Act of 1894, ch. 607, amending sec. 242 of Art. 23 of the Code. The appellant contends that this Act is unconstitutional and void, because it does not provide for any notice of the proceeding to the Turnpike Company and it provides for taking private property without due process of law in contravention of the State and Federal Constitutions. This Act was recently before the Court in the Turnpike Company v. Startzman, 86 Md. 365 , a case involving proceedings under the Act, and while the points here made were not directly presented in that case, we said; the proceedings adopted and pursued in that case, could not be objected' to on