[Art. 4] JUDICIARY DEPARTMENT 109
from judgments of Justices of the Peace in said city, whether civil or
criminal, or arising under the ordinances of the Mayor and City Council of
Baltimore, of all of which appeal cases the Baltimore City Court shall have
exclusive jurisdiction; and the said Court of Common Pleas shall have
exclusive jurisdiction in all applications for the benefit of the Insolvent
Laws of Maryland, and the supervision and control of the Trustees thereof.
Constitution of 1851.
Jurisdiction of appeals involving the condemnation of land for the opening of
streets, held not to be given to the superior court by art. 4, sec. 11, of the Constitu-
tion of 1851. Baltimore v. Clunet, 23 Md. 465.
Under art. 4, secs. 10 and 11, of the Constitution of 1851, the court of common
pleas was held to have no jurisdiction in a proceeding to enforce a mechanics' lien;
the superior court only could enforce them. Miller v. Barroll, 14 Md. 184.
Under art. 4, secs. 10 and 11, of the Constitution of 1851, the legislature could
neither enlarge nor decrease the powers vested in the court of common pleas. State v.
Mace, 5 Md. 347; Broadbent v. State, 7 Md. 430.
Under art. 4, sec. 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 Constitu-
tion of 1851, to issue writs of error, and how the Constitution should be construed,
see Manly v. State, 7 Md. 146.
For cases dealing with art. 4, secs. 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 Balti-
more, etc., Co. v. Steuart, 28 Md. 365.
Since justices of the peace have no jurisdiction where title to land is involved, the
superior court, the Baltimore city court and the court of common pleas have juris-
diction in actions ex contractu 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 jurisdiction of said courts in actions ex contractu is not merely the amount
claimed but also the amount recovered, which must exceed $100. Residuary jurisdic-
tion. 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 opening 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. Baltimore,
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 equity courts must remain without alteration as it was
when Constitution of 1867 was adopted until there is a constitutional amendment, it is
in opposition to the last sentence of art. 4, sec. 39. Capron v. Devries, 83 Md. 224.
Baltimore City ordinance providing for inspection of meat, etc., not invalid because
it provides for appeal to Baltimore City Court from action of Health Commissioner,
and limits jurisdiction of that court to questions of law. Baltimore v. Bloecher &
Schaaf, 149 Md. 661.
Zoning ordinance of Baltimore City not invalid because it provides appeal to Balti-
more City Court, and not to Court of Appeals. Tighe v. Osborne, 150 Md. 464. See
Code, art. 66B.
See notes to secs. 24 and 29.
Sec. 29. The Circuit Court of Baltimore City shall have exclusive juris-
diction in Equity within the limits of said city, and all such jurisdiction
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 au-
thority 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