Reddall v. Bryan

Bartol, L, delivered the opinion of this court. In the opinion of a majority of this court, the nature of the acts complained of in this bill, and of the injury alleged, is such as to present a case of irreparable damage, which would entitle the complainant to the interposition of a court of equity by injunction, if it sufficiently appeared on the face of the bill' that the acts charged were done by the defendants without authority of law. We think there is great force in the view taken by the Circuit court of the manner in which the case of the complainant is stated in the bill, and cannot avoid the conclusion, ‘‘that it is made out by the concealment of facts having a very important bearing upon it, and which would (if fully stated) act materially upon the conscience of the court.” The right to an injunction is not ex debito justitice, but such application is addressed to the sound conscience of the chancellor, acting upon all the circumstances belonging to each particular case. He has the right (o require a full and candid disclosure of all the facts, and if there appears in the proceedings, sufficient to show that this has not been made, he may properly refuse to exercise the extraordinary power of the court, through the instrumentality of a writ of injunction.

There is sufficient, however, on the face of the bill to show that the defendants are acting under the authority of the government of the United States, in the construction of an aque ⁴⁷⁷ duct for supplying the city of Washington with water, and that the authority of the general government to occupy and use the lands of the complainant for that purpose, is based upon the Act of Assembly of 1853, ch. 179. That Act authorizes the expropriation of lands within the State of Maryland, for the purpose of constructing such aqueduct. It is not alleged in the bill that the defendants have not in all things complied with the provisions of that Act, or that condemnation has not been made, as therein provided, and the damages awarded tendered to the complainant. But the ground is taken in the bill, and it has been insisted on in the argument, that the Act of 1853 is unconstitutional and void, because the use for which the property is authorized to be taken, is not “a public use,” within the meaning of the 46th section of the Srd Article of the Constitution.

The language of that section is: “The Legislature shall enact no law authorizing private property to be taken for public use, without just compensation as agreed upon between the parties, or awarded by a jury, being first paid or tendered to the party entitled to such compensation.” We regard the words of this section as mandatory, both as to the use for which private property may be taken, and the previous payment or tender of compensation therefor. It can be taken only for public use. But we cannot adopt the narrow, and restricted construction of these words, contended for by the appellant’s counsel. They do not mean merely a use of the government of Maryland, or of the State of Maryland, and its inhabitants as such, but, in our opinion, they embrace within their scope, a use of the government of the United States.

The supplying of the capital of the