Burk v. Mayor of Baltimore

Fowler, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Charles Burk, the appellant, being dissatisfied with the assessments made by the Commissioners for Opening Streets in the City of Baltimore, in the matter of the opening of Whitelock street, appealed to the Baltimore City Court, where he filed a motion to quash the proceedings. This motion was overruled, and hence this appeal. During the course of the trial two exceptions were taken by the appellant to the rulings of the Court on the admissibility of evidence.

It was contended by the appellant in reference to the order overruling his motion to quash, first, that there is a fatal variance between the preliminary notice and Ordinance Number 156 for opening Whitelock street, passed October 22, 1889; second, that said ordinance itself is void for vagueness; and, third, that in no event can said ordinance he construed so as to support the return of the said Street Commissioners. ⁴⁷¹ Of course, the giving of the preliminary notice is a condition precedent to the valid exercise of the power given to the appellee to open a street in any given case. And it is equally well settled, that the notice and the ordinance passed in pursuance thereof must conform in substance. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore vs. Grand Lodge, &c., 44 Md., 444 . And it seems to us from an examination of the notice and the ordinance, that the latter not only substantially, but literally, followed the former.

Whatever may be said as to the vagueness of the ordinance, without reference to the plat therein referred to, all ambiguity disappears when that plat is examined— for the exact direction, location, and width of the proposed street therein appear. It was entirely proper, instead of trying to give a minute and accurate description, to provide in the ordinance that Whitelock street should be condemned and opened “as located on said plat.” This course was approved in Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, et al. vs. Bouldin, et al., 23 Md., 371 . The ordinance does not undertake to define with accuracy the lines of the proposed street, the plat being referred to for that purpose, and if there should be any variance between the courses and distances and measurements contained in the ordinance, and those set forth in the plat, the latter will govern. This is the rule where a plat or map is referred to in a deed, and we can see no good reason why the same rule should not apply here.

It has been held also, that “ when a map or plat is referred to in a deed, the effect is the same as if it were copied into the deed.”