
    Greenwood vs. Stoner.
    Appeal from Frederick County Court. The cause was argued in this court before Chase, Ch. J. and Nicholson, Earle, and Johnson, J. The case sufficiently appears in the argument of (he appellant’s counsel.
    The county court has no power, un* i'ev theactofi7B5, ch. 49, oi* any oilier law, to order a public road ito be opened
    Taney, for the Appellant,
    stated, that John Stoner, (die appellee,) petitioned for the road described in his pe» tition, which passes through the land of Greenwood, (tho appellant.) The court granted the road. Greenwood has appealed from the decision of the county court, to this court, and now prays that the same may be reversed, for the following reasons:
    1. Because the court had not the power to grant the road in question.
    2. Because it is unnecessarily injurious to Greenwood„ First. The power of granting private roads or ways is given to the county courts by the act of i 78a, ch. 49, a/¡4 they have no further power on this subject, than that given by this law. The power given to the court in the third section, is to grant such private road or way as is mentí* «ned in the second section; that is, a road “to and from theffirm and plantation” of the petitioner, “.to places of public worship,” and mills, &p. In other words, the court» have the power of granting to any individual a convenient outlet from his farm, or plantation, to other places, but not the power to open a road, for the public convenience, or the convenience of a neighbourhood. The road applied for in the petition, is not a road “io and from his farm or plantation,” to a placeof public worship, or mill, or market town, or public ferry, or court-house — but “a road from Paul Hawk's church to the petitioner’s mill, and from his mill to intersect the public road leading from Liberty-town to Baltimore.” The petitioner therefore does not king his ease within the act of assembly. It does not appear from the petition that the road in question touches any farm or plantation of the petitioner. It passes his* mill. Any other person, or he himself, Would have been* entitled, under the law, toa way ‘Ho and from his farm and plantation” to his mill; but this is for the convenience of the owners of the farms or plantations, not of the owner of the mill. It is their privilege, not his. The power is not given to the court to grant to the owners of iniljs convenient roads to apd from their mills, to churches pr other places. The road in question is laid out from a. church to a main road. The church, at which it begins, is proved in the record not tp be the one frequented by the petitioner, pud to belong tp a different denomination of Christians. After leaving the church nearly two-thirds of a mile, this private way enters the pitblic ropd leading from Frederick-town tp Fork-town, and runs to the mid-' die thereof. It runs with this public rpr.d 19 perches, then passes oyer tp the other side, and reaches the petitioner’s mill, more than seven and a half miles distant from the phurch at whici} it set put; passes the petifioner’s mill, and after running two miles (wanting 46 perches,) further, and passing two other mills, it reaches the land of Greenwood, the appellant; then goes on the public road from Liberty-town sto Baltimore, distant about four miles, and three quarters of a mite from the petitioner’s mill, and passing' three more mills in its way. The whole length of the road is 3979| pprehes, more than twelve and a quarter miles. It passes six mills, including the petitioner’s, crosses the great road frurp Frederick-town to Fork-town, and runs ■with it part of the way. Such is the road asked for in the petition, apd granted by the court; a road which it might be proper for the legislature by law to open, but which is believed not to be such “a private road or way to and from a farm or plantation” as the county court are empowered by law to grant.
    
      Second. To prove that the road granted by the coprt. yras unnecessarily injurious to the petitioner, he referred to the depositions of the witnesses which appeared in the record, but which it is unnecessary to notice here. And lie contended, that the petition itself proved conclusively that the road in question W£S intended, and was to be, a public neighbourhood road, and not a private road or way for the petitioner-’^ own use. That it stated that \Hheye
      
      miioner, with a number of others, labour under great inconvenience for thf want of this road.” The neighbourhood inconvenience, therefore, was the foundation of the application to the court, and for the general benefit of the neighbourhood the road was applied for.
    No counsel argued for the appellee.
   JUP.GMENT REVERSED.  