|
|
|
That he should not add anything to what had been already
said as to the proper time for hearing the appeal.
Mr. Rogers reargued the point at length. The Chief
Justice then said he should like to know whether the point
was insisted on by both of the counsel for the respondents.
Mr. Brown stated that all he meant to say was that it
would be personally gratifying to him if the highest court
of the State could dispose of the main question now; which
is, whether or not, on such a case as is here presented, it
would be competent for the Superior Court of Baltimore
City to prevent by injunction the citizens of Baltimore
from voting at the very important election to be held on
Wednesday next, but he did not mean to waive any of the
rights of the respondents or to differ from his colleague.
The Chief Justice, after consultation with his associates,
said a majority of the court are of the opinion that this
appeal cannot be heard at the present term. It is clear
that answers in the case were filed before the order re-
fusing the injunction was passed. Whatever might have
been his opinion if the question had been presented for
the first time, the question had already been passed upon
in the case of Steigerwald and Winans. The answer hav-
ing been filed, it is to be presumed that the judge below
considered it. It was his duty to have done so, and we
cannot impute to him any neglect of duty. Under these
circumstances, he thought the appeal should be placed on
the docket of the next term.
Judge Bartol said that he dissented from the opinion of
the court; that it was true that the case at bar came with-
in the opinion in the case of Steigerwald and Winans, but
that he had always considered the court in error in their
ruling in that case, and he was in favor of reversing a
decision when he believed it erroneous. He gave his rea-
sons at length for not concurring in the opinion of the
court in the case of Steigerwald and Winans.
Judge Grain said he could not concur in opinion with
the Chief Justice. Injunctions are generally granted ex
parte, and the provisions of the code were intended to ap-
ply to a refusal to grant such injunction—it was to remedy
an evil, equally great, whether the answer was filed or not
If he had sat in the case of Steigerwald and Winans he
26
|
|
|
|
 |
