McColgan v. Baltimore Belt Railroad

Russum, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant recovered a judgment against the appellee, which was affirmed on appeal by this Court, and no payment or settlement thereof having been made, he filed a bill in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City praying an injunction to restrain the operation of the appellee’s railroad until his judgment was satisfied, basing his claim to this re ³²⁶ lief on Ordinance No. 83 of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, approved May 14th, 1890. The appellee filed its answer, denying that the ordinance in question gives the remedy by injunction for any judgment recovered for injuries to private property by the location and construction of its railroad ; and claiming that the remedy by injunction is distinctly limited to judgments recovered under said ordinance, and denying that under the terms of chapter 139, of the Acts of the General Assembly 1890, and the ordinance No. 83 of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, the appellant was entitled to an in-j unction prohibiting the operation of its railroad. Upon hearing the Court below dismissed the bill and the plaintiff appealed.

The Baltimore Belt Railroad Company was organized under the general Railroad Incorporation laws of this State, for the purpose of constructing a railroad through parts of Baltimore City and parts of Baltimore County, and, by the Acts of 1890 chapter 139, it was authorized to construct its railroad or any part thereof, in a tunnel, under such ordinance or ordinances as might be passed by the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, relating to the route of such railroad through the city of Baltimore and the mode, terms and conditio7is of the buildÍ7ig and constructio7t of said railroad within said city. By ordinance No. 83, of the session of 1889-1890, the consent of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore was given to the construction of said railroad, and elaborate provisions