84 CONSTITUTION OF MARYLAND. [ART. IV

to enforce a mechanics' lien; the superior court only could enforce them.
Miller v. Barroll, 14 Md. 184.

Under article 4, sections 10 and 11, of the constitution of 1851, the legis-
lature could neither enlarge nor decrease the powers vested in the court
of common pleas. State v. Mace, 5 Md. 347; Broadhent v. State, 7 Md. 430.

Under article 4, section 10, of the constitution of 1851, the court of
common pleas was held to have no original jurisdiction in actions of
replevin. Blimline v. Cohen, 8 Md. 147.

For a case dealing with the jurisdiction of the superior court under the
constitution of 1851, to issue writs or error, and how the constitution
should be construed, see Manly v. State, 7 Md. 146.

For cases dealing with article 4, sections 10 and 11, of the constitution
of 1851 (not now applicable by reason of changes in the constitution), see
Abbott v. Gatch, 13 Md. 335; Reidel v. Turner, 28 Md. 362; Manly v.
State, 7 Md. 146. And see Baltimore, etc., Co. v. Steuart, 28 Md. 365.

Generally.

Since justices of the peace have no jurisdiction where title to land is
involved, the superior court, the Baltimore City court and the court ot
common pleas have jurisdiction in actions ex contracts where such title
is involved, although the amount that may be recovered does not exceed
$100. The jurisdiction which the above courts "now have," refers to such
jurisdiction as they had under the constitution of 1864. The test of juris-
diction of said courts in actions ex contractu is not merely the amount
claimed but also the amount recovered, which must exceed $100. Resid-
uary jurisdiction. Interest. Legum v. Blank. 105 Md. 129. And see Reese
v. Hawks, 63 Md. 132. Cf. Rohr v. Anderson, 51 Md. 217.

The portion of this section giving the city court exclusive jurisdiction
of cases arising under the ordinances of the mayor and city council of
Baltimore, referred to in deciding that in a case involving the assessment
of benefits for the opening of a street, the city court had authority to
review any irregularity in the proceedings of the commissioners for open-
ing streets,, and that an appeal lay in such case to the court of appeals
from the decision of the city court upon matters of law. Page v. Balti-
more, 34 Md. 563.

If the contention be correct that by virtue of the portion of this section
declaring that the law courts in Baltimore City shall have concurrent
jurisdiction in civil common law cases, the jurisdiction of the equity
courts must remain without alteration as it was when the constitution
of 1867 was adopted until there is a constitutional amendment, it is in
opposition to the last sentence of article 4, section 39. Capron v. Devries,
83 Md. 224.

See notes to sections 14 and 29.

Sec. 29. The Circuit Court of Baltimore City shall have exclusive
jurisdiction in Equity within the limits of said city, and all such juris-
diction as the present Circuit Court of Baltimore City has; provided,
the said Court shall not have jurisdiction in applications for the writ
of habeas corpus in cases of persons charged with criminal offenses.

This section referred to in discussing the courts having jurisdiction in
England and in Maryland to decree divorces and to annul marriages.
Ridgley v. Ridgley, 79 Md. 303.

A case having been prosecuted to final decree in the superior court,
there the authority and jurisdiction of that court as a court of equity
ceased, since by this and the preceding section equity jurisdiction was
taken away from the superior court and vested in the circuit court for
Baltimore City—see notes to section 36. Orrick v. Boehm, 49 Md. 98.

Sec. 30. The Criminal Court of Baltimore shall have and exercise
all the jurisdiction now held and exercised by the Criminal Court of