|
|
Baldwin v. Maryland, 179 U.S. 220 (1900)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Baldwin v. Maryland, 179 U.S. 220 (1900)
Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 179 U.S. 210, click here.
Baldwin v. Maryland No. 113 Argued November 16, 1900 Decided December 3, 1900 179 U.S. 220
ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Syllabus
The controversy between the State of Maryland and the estate of the ward having been finally settled in favor of the state, and the only federal question presented in this case having been determined to favor of the state, this Court declines to consider the purely local question whether a judgment binding the estate binds also the sureties on the guardian’s bond.
The facts are these: prior to 1880 certain residents of Maryland died, leaving property to Columbus C. Baldwin, a minor. After the settlement of the estates of the decedents, a guardian of the estate of said minor was appointed by the Orphans’ Court of Washington County, Maryland. In consequence of the death of the guardian, succeeding guardians were appointed, and in August, 1891, William Woodward Baldwin was duly appointed a guardian of the estate of such minor, and gave bond to perform his duty according to law. The present plaintiffs in error were sureties on that bond. During the years of the guardianship, the register of wills of Washington County made annual returns to the county commissioners of the property of estates unsettled, and among those that of the estate of this minor, and taxes were levied thereon in accordance with law, and were duly paid up to the year 1893. The taxes for 1893 and 1894 being unpaid, the guardian filed a bill in the Circuit Court for Washington County to restrain their collection. The basis of his contention was that both he and the ward were nonresidents of Maryland, and that the estate of the ward had been taken by him outside of the state. The circuit court decided against him, and denied the injunction. This judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals of the state. 85 Md. 145. An attempt was made to review that judgment in this Court, but the writ of error was dismissed (168 U.S. 705) on the ground that no federal question had been distinctly preserved, or, if preserved, that there was a nonfederal question which was decisive of the case. Thereafter, the taxes being still unpaid, and the estate still unsettled, and the same statement presented by the register of wills to the county commissioners in respect to the taxes of 1895, this action was commenced to recover from the bondsmen the amount of the taxes for the years 1893, 1894, and 1895. Judgment was rendered against them in the trial court, and affirmed by the Court of Appeals of the state (89 Md. 587), to reverse which judgment this writ of error has been sued out.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Baldwin v. Maryland, 179 U.S. 220 (1900) in 179 U.S. 220 179 U.S. 221. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=HR41ZGC2A4YNW88.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Baldwin v. Maryland, 179 U.S. 220 (1900), in 179 U.S. 220, page 179 U.S. 221. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=HR41ZGC2A4YNW88.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Baldwin v. Maryland, 179 U.S. 220 (1900). cited in 1900, 179 U.S. 220, pp.179 U.S. 221. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=HR41ZGC2A4YNW88.
|