Maryland tax digest

UC-NRLF

*B b3M 15b

[1

• 'tUiiU

m

it

m

lllluli

cX( 2

MARYLAND

TAX DIGEST

BY

A. B. CUNNINGHAM

judge; of the appeal tax court of4 Baltimore city

J M>1

• » •- 1 • • •

• » V » ••

1 »

* '•

1 ~> • •••..».••.».. • ■» »

• • ». » • • a • ,»

BALTIMORE :

M. CURLANDER,

LAW BOOKSELLER, PUBLISHER AND IMPORTER.

1914.

COPYRIGHT, 1 91 4
M. CURLANDBR

'2 «•'

• <

v 1 ■

v* ' ' ■' • t' * \ * '

1

PREFACE.

This Digest of the opinions of the Court of Appeals con-
tained in the Maryland Reports to the year 1914, including
121 Md., is published with the hope that it may be utilized,
in a measure, by the tax authorities of the state, and by the
legal profession, as a ready reference book of some value.

As will be noted, the subjects are classified alphabetically
for convenient reference, and it is hoped that this arrange-
ment will meet with the approval of those who may use
the volume.

The Digest is almost necessarily limited in bulk, as the
field which it has sought to cover comprises only one gen-
eral subject. The compiler trusts, however, that those who
may have occasion to fully examine its pages, will find that
all the vital and momentous tax issues in the state which
have found their final settlement in the Court of Appeals
have been fairly well presented.

The compiler has endeavored, in digesting a number of the
more wide-reaching decisions, to reproduce, in brief, salient
passages, the identical language used by the Court, it being
quite clear that this would be more illuminative of the judi-
cial meaning than a mere syllabus would be.

In view of the exceptionally important character of the
tax legislation passed by the General Assembly at the ses-
sion of 1914, none of which has yet been given wide pub-
licity, a number of these Acts have been printed in the Ap-
pendix to the Digest.

313156

THE FIFTEENTH ARTICLE OF THE MARYLAND
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS.

The fundamental basis of taxation in Maryland is Article
15 of the Declaration of Rights. It is the standard by which
all the tax legislation of the commonwealth had been meas-
ured since 1776. To the Judiciary of the State it has been
what the North Star was to the ancient mariner — a never
failing guide and monitor. The proviso that "every person
in the state ought to contribute his proportion of public
taxes for the support of government according to his actual
worth in real and personal property within the state" has
been from the beginning and still remains the keystone to
the great arch of our taxation and revenue system. As will
be noted by the student of our Judicial records, the letter
and spirit of "Article Fifteen" threads all the important
tax decisions of our Court of Appeals. In this connection it
is curious, from a historical point of view, to note that in
the case of the Appeal Tax Court v. Gill, 50 Md. 377, ap-
pellant's counsel, Mr. Charles J. M. Gwinn, attributed the
inspiration of Article Fifteen to Adam Smith, whose
"Wealth of Nations" was first published in the early part
of 1776, and in which occurred the following maxim: "The
subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the sup-
port of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion
to their respective abilities ; that is, in proportion to the
revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection
of the state." The striking similarity in the language of the
two passages would certainly suggest a common origin.

TABLE OF CASES

Alexander v. Baltimore, 12, 143.
Allegany Co. v. N. Y. Mining Co.,

14.
Allegany Co- v. Union Mining

Co., 83, 125.

Allen v. Harford Co., 101, 136.

Allen v. State, 126.

Amer. Casualty Ins Co.'s Case, 84,

85.
Amer. Coal Co. v. Allegany Co.,

2, 31, 98, 148.
Anne Arundel Co- v. Balto. Sugar

Co., 69, 98.
Anne Arundel Co. v. R. R. Co., 68.
Appeal Tax Court v. Cemetery

Co., 33, 120.
Appeal Tax Court v. Gill, 26, 68,

72, 147.
Appeal Tax Court v. Grand Lodge,

23.
Appeal Tax Court v. N. C. R. R.

Co., 106, 115.
Appeal Tax Court v. Patterson, 57,

J2, III, 120.
Appeal Tax Court v. P. W. & B.

R. R. Co., 115.
Appeal Tax Court v. Pullman Co.,

115, 144.
Appeal Tax Court v. Rice, 46, 48,

136.
Appeal Tax Court v. St. Peter's

Academy, 68, 69, 147.
Appeal Tax Court v. Union R. R.

Co., 59-
Appeal Tax Court v. Univ. of Md.,

139.
Appeal Tax Court v. W. M. R. R.

Co., 2, 134, 137, 189.

2, 134, 137, 189.
Baden v. Perkins, 95.
Baker v. Baker, 50.
Baldwin v. State, 79, 161.
Baldwin v. Washington Co., 106.

Baltimore v. Allegany Co., 88, 147,

152.
Baltimore v. B. & O. R. R. Co.,

16, 115.
Baltimore v. Balto- City Pas. Ry.

Co., 97, 157-
Baltimore v. Bonaparte, 10.
Baltimore v. Canton Co., 45, 136,

160.
Baltimore v. Cemetery Co., 51, 69,

157.

Baltimore v. Chester River S. S.
Co., 2, 166, 181.

Baltimore v. Consolidated Gas
Co., 74.

Baltimore v. Gail, 6, 24, 64.

Baltimore v. Gill, 66, 123.

Baltimore v. Gittings, 64, 83, 108.

Baltimore v. Grand Lodge, 68.

Baltimore v. Hanson, 11.

Baltimore v. Harris, 6, 25.

Baltimore v. Harvey, 9, 51, 171.

Baltimore v. Howard, 137.

Baltimore v. Hurlock, 31, 67, 80,
105.

Baltimore v. Hussey, 50.

Baltimore v. Jenkins, 33, 112.

Baltimore v. Johns Hopkins Hos-
pital, 12, 127.

Baltimore v. Johnson, 155, 176.

Baltimore v. Knell, 7, 183.

Baltimore v. Lefferman, 169, 171.

Baltimore v. Poole, 3, 107, 137.

Baltimore v. Raymo, 131.

Baltimore v. Rosenthal, 5, 28, 29.

Baltimore v. Safe Dep. Co., 119,
183.

Baltimore v. Schafer, 25.

Baltimore v. Starr Church, 69, 87.

Baltimore v. State, 176.

Baltimore v. Sterling, 183.

Baltimore v. Stewart, 152.

Baltimore v. Ulman, 13, 152.

Vlll

Table of Cases

B. & E. S. R. R. Co. v. Spring, 172.
B. C. & A. Ry Co. v. Ocean City.

70. .

B. C. & A. Ry. Co. v. Wicomico

Co., 49, 70, 105, H3, 133, 140, 143.
Baltimore County v. Md. Hospital

for Insane, 82.
Baltimore County v. Winand, 3,

124.
Bank of Baltimore v. Baltimore,

22, 176.
Bank v. Earle, 141.
Barnett v. Dickinson, 140.
Bassett v. Ocean City, 137, 151,

152.
Baumgardner v. Fowler, 52, 161.
Benzinger v. Gies, 53, 162.
Blakistone v. State, 65, 135.
Boggs v. Inter-American Co., 70.
Bonaparte v. State, 3. 51, 114, 157,

158.
Brooks v. Baltimore, 12.
Burgess v. Pue, 14.
Carstairs v. Cochran, 57, 120, J 21.

163.
Central Ga. R. R. Co. v. Eichberg.

70.
Chauvenet v. Anne Arundel Co.,

68.

C. & P. Tel Co. v. Allegany Co., Q.
C. & N. W. R. R. Co. v. Chicago.

80.

Clark Distilling Co. v. Cumber-
land, 146, 148.

Cleaveland v. Mullin, 27.

Cons. Gas Co. v. Baltimore, 1, 10,
25, 60, 61, 80, 100, 160, 176.

Consumer's Ice Co. v. State. 184.

Corry v. Baltimore, 71, 72, 107.

Coulston v. Baltimore, 7, 29, 182.

Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. State,
116, 147, 160.

Cumberland & Pa. R. R. Co. v.
State, 78, 86.

Daly v. Morgan, 173.

Dashiell v. Baltimore. 137.

Degner v. Baltimore, 94.

Desmare v. United States, 141.

Dewing v. Perdicaries, 147.

Dolan v. Baltimore, 32.

Dugan v. Baltimore, 2.

Dundalk &c. Ry. Co. v. Smith, 60.

Duvall v. Perkins, 162.

Dyer v. Boswell, 161.

Electric Light Co, v. Frederick, 63.

Emory v. State, 46. 47, 49.

Ensor v. Graff, 140.

Eschbach v. Pitts, 117.

Faust v. Build. Asso., 31, 108.

Farrington v. Tennessee. 147.

Fidelity Co. v. Charles County,

27, 187.
Fidelity Sav. Bk. v. State, 145.
Firemen's Ins. Co. v. Baltimore,

96, 15*.
Fisher v. State. 36.
Fowble v. Kemp, 57. 163.
Frederick Co. v. Bank, 20.
Frederick Co. v. Clagett, 5.
Frederick Co. v. Frederick. 50, 102,

153. 176.

Frederick Co. v. Sisters St. Joseph,
15. 23, 116.

Frown felter v. State, 26, 124.

George's Creek Co. v. Allegany
Co., 50. 169, 172.

Gittings v. Baltimore, 64, 84.

Goodsell v. Lawson, 122.

Gordon v. Baltimore, 19.

Gould v. Baltimore, it. 142. 165.

Graham v.. Harford Co., 91.

Gunther v. Baltimore. 184.

Hagerstown v. Startzman. it. 142.

Hamburger v. Baltimore. 48. T05.

Hammond v. O'Hara. I, 2.

Hannis Distilling Co.. v. Balti-
more, 70. 163, 164.

Hanover Water Co. v. Ashland
Iron Co., 80.

Harding v. American Glucose Co.,
70.

Harris v. Pue. 140.

Hebb v. Moore, i6t, t66.

Hess v. Muir. 122.

Hill v. Williams. 126. 156. 157.

Hiss v. Baltimore. 24. 132.

Table of Cases

IX

Holland v. Baltimore, 04.
Hooper v. Baltimore, 184, 185.
Hopkins v. Baker, 75, 88.
Hopkins v. State, 184.
Hopkins v. Van Wyck, 48, 67, 112.
Horn Silver Mining Co. v. State

of New York, 70.
Howell v. State, 154, 184, 185.
Hull v. South. Dev. Co-, 41, 147,

148.
Hutchinson v. Ins. Co., 85.
Hyattsville v. Smith, 108, 151.
Jeiitt & Newark, 117.
Joesting v. Baltimore, 8, 64, 65,

75-

Kerr v. State, 14.
Kinehart v. Howard, 138, 150, 188.
Koontz v. Hancock, 94.
Langhammer v. Munter, 141.
Latrobe v. Baltimore, 58, 183.
Lauer v. Baltimore, 10, II, 143.
Laurenson v. State, 26.
Leser v. Wagner, 12, 65, 108, 117.
Lester v. Baltimore, 169, 170, 172.
Louis. R. R. Co. v. Letson, 141.
Margraff v. Cunningham, 161.
Marine Bank v. Heller, 65.
Massachusetts v. Provident Inst.,

144.

McCutchen v. Rice Co., 141.

McMahon v. Crean, 162.

Md. Tube Works v. Imp. Co., 27.

Mitchell v. United States, 141.

Moale v. Baltimore, 12.

Mofrett v. Calvert County, 66.

Montague v. State, 37.

Monticello Co. v. Baltimore, 31,
50, 56, 57- 107, 136, 160, 163.

Morgan v. Parham, 185.

Morris v. Baltimore, 171.

Murphy v. Wheatley, 27.

Murray v. Charleston, no.

Musgrove v. B. & O. R. R. Co..
101, 134. 176.

Myers v. Baltimore County, 32.

Nat. Shutter Bar Co. v. Zimmer-
man, 27.

Nicodemus v. Hull, 13.

Nugent v. Bates, 141.
Oberlander v. Emmel, 139.
O. & M. R. R. Co. v. Wheeler, 141.
Old Dominion S. S. Co. v. Vir-
ginia, 185.
O'Neal v. Va. Bridge Co., 9, 30.
Owner's Realty Co. v. Baltimore,

Pacific Express Co. v. Seibert, 73.

Painter v. Mattfeldt, 66.

Parlett v. Dugan, 94, 182.

Perkins v. Dyer, 127.

Peter v. Prettyman, 123.

P. W. & B. R. R. Co. v. Appeal
Tax Court, 61, 133.

P. B. & W. R. R. v. Baltimore, II.

Power Co. v. Havre de Grace, 104.

Prince George's Co. v. Clarke, 65.

Prop, of Meeting House v. Lowell,
23, 116.

Provident Inst. v. Mass., 144.

R. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 34.

Reeside v. Peter, 157.

Richardson v. Simpson, 161, 163.

St. Mary's Ind. School v. Brown,
172.

Salisbury Build. Asso. v. Wicomi-
co Co., 188.

Salisbury v. Jackson, 100, 153.

Sams v. Fisher, 8, 24, 126, 137.

Schaeffer v. Gilbert, 138, 139, 142.

Schley v. Montgomery Co., 27, 99,
176.

Short v. State, 178.
I Shultz v. Houck, 140.

Simpson v. Hopkins, 30, 42, 126,
181.

Sindall v. Baltimore, 132. .

Skinner Dry Dock Co. v. Balti-
more, 48, 85, 112, 179.

Smith v. Baltimore, 29, 30.

Smith v. School Commrs., 60.

Smith Fireproof Co. v. Munroe,

T22.

Stanley v. Safe Dep. Co., 139.
State v. Applegarth, 94.
State v. ft. & O. R. R. Co., T7, 175.
State v. Balto. Cemetery Co.. 68.

Table of Cases

State v- Carroll, 93.

State v. Cent. Sav. Bk., 145.

State v. C & P. R. R. Co., 34,

77-

State v. Dalrymple, 36.

State v. Ger. Sav. Bk, 145.

State v. Horner, 14.

State v. Mayhew, 21.

State v. N. C. R. &. Co., 16,

38,

60.

State v. P. W. & B. R. R. Co.,

72,

78, 144.

State v. Safe Deposit Co., 49.
State v. Savings Bank, 56. 79.
State v. Sterling, 54, 55, 56, 79-
State v. U. S. Fidelity Co., 73.
Stoddert v. Ward, 58, 66, 140, 142.
Swan v. Kemp, 60.
Tax Cases, 19, 42, 101, 120, 136,

159-
Taylor v. Forrest, 162.

Tidewater Canal Co. v. Archer, 80.

Tome Institute v. Crothers, 122.

Turner v. Crosby. 141.

Tyson v. State, 36.

Union Trust Co. v. State, 31, 43,

48, 92.
United Railways v- Baltimore, 6o,

68, 187.

U. S. Elec. Power & Light Co. v.

State, 58, 77, 120, 148.
Valentine v. Hagerstown, 102.
Van Brocklin v. Tennessee, 68.
Vogler v. Geiss, 140.
W. M. R. R. Co. v. Baltimore, 91,

122.
Walker v. Jack, 72.
Wannenwetch v. Baltimore, 108,

137-
Watson v. Watson. 4.
Webster v. Balto. County, 124.
Weller v. Mueller, 65.
Wells v. Hyattsville, 150.
Westminster v. Westminster Sav.

Bk., 145.
Wheeler v. Addison, 166.
Wilkens Co. v. Baltimore, 15, 21,

69, 160.

MARYLAND TAX DIGEST

Abatements. Whenever any person shall make applica-
tion for an allowance or deduction on account of the sale,
transfer, alienation, loss or removal of any property, or
the collection or payment of any public or private security
for money, the County Commissioners or Appeal Tax
Court shall interrogate him on oath in reference there-
to and the disposal of the same, and especially inquire of
him to whom the same has been sold or transferred, and the
amount of the purchase money or the money collected
and how the same has been invested. Code 1911, Art. 81,
sec. 16; Baltimore City Charter, sees. 156 and 157.

Accuracy of Assessments Presumed. Presumptions are
in favor of the correctness of assessments. Consolidated
Gas Co. v. Baltimore, 101 Md. 5#9.

In accordance with the universal presumption in favor
of the regularity and validity of official acts, tax assess-
ments, made in the line of official duty, are presumably cor-
rect, and the burden of showing the contrary is upon the
person claiming to be aggrieved. Accordingly, it will be pre-
sumed that proper notice was given ; that a correct method
of valuation was used, and that a fair valuation was placed
on the property. 27 Amer. and Eng. Enc. of Law {2d Edi-
tion), p. 728. (Quoted by Court in Con. Gas Co. v. Balti-
more, 101 Md. 559.)

>

Actions to Recover Taxes. If the appellees are liable to
be taxed as owners of the property, a duty has arisen upon

2 Maryland Tax Digest.

the assessment made to pay the taxes levied, and such duty
could be enforced by an action at law, as upon an implied
assumpsit notwithstanding the repeal of the Statute of 1876,
Ch. 260. Appeal Tax Court v. W. M. R. R. Co., 50 Md. 295.

The failure of the Tax Collector to deliver to the delin-
quent tax payer an account of his assessment within the time
limited by law did not affect the suit for unpaid taxes.
Dugan v. Baltimore, 1 G. & J. 499.

Whenever the law makes it the duty of a corporation to
pay the tax on shares of stock the obligation may be enforced
by legal action. American Coal Co. v. Allegany County,
59 Md. 185.

To entitle the collector of the county tax to recover in his
own right, from a taxable inhabitant, the amount of his
assessment, such collector must show that the taxes placed
in his hands for collection had been paid over to the persons
in whose favor levies had been made, or adduce some proof
showing that he had furnished such evidence to the proper
tribunal for adjusting his accounts. The circumstance, that
an account presented by a collector to the Levy Court, was
by that Court, filed in the clerk's office, is no evidence that
the Levy Court adopted it. Hammond v. O'Hara, 2 H. & G.
111.

Code, Art. 81, Sec. 70, provides that taxes shall be
in arrears on the first of January next following the levy,
and this section does not authorize a suit against a corpora-
tion on shares of non-resident shareholders until the ex-
piration of that time. Baltimore v. Chester River S. S. Co.,
103 Md. 400.

Maryland Tax Digest. 3

A person assessed without notice is entitled to a writ of
injunction to restrain the collection of the tax. Baltimore
v. Poole & Son Co., 97 Md. 67.

Acts of Tax Officials Must be Within the Law. No per-
son can be taxed without notice by the County Commis-
sioners. When a person is so assessed and he applies to
have the assessment set aside the Commissioners have no
authority to continue it on their books because he cannot or
will not say who is the actual owner of the assessed prop-
erty. Baltimore County v. Winand, 77 Md. 522.

Administrators and Executors — Their Duties as to the
Payment of Taxes. Under the provisions of the Code
Art. 81, Sec. 72, which prescribes that "administrators
shall pay all taxes due from their decedents as preferred
debts, and to the exclusion of all others, except necessary
funeral expenses," executors and administrators are evi-
dently held affected with notice of taxes due upon the prop-
erty in their custody, and it is their legal duty to ascertain
and discharge them, next after funeral expenses, before
proceeding to the further administration of the estate.
Bonaparte v. State, 63 Md. 465.

But while an executor is to be assessed in the city or
county where administration is had with personal property
there situate, and that of an intangible nature not located
permanently elsewhere, it is provided by the Code, Art.
75, Sec. 88, that "an executor may be sued either in the
county where he resides, or where he obtained administra-

4 Maryland Tax Digkst.

tion." This right to sue in either place is but to facilitate
recovery against an executor and does not affect the nature
of the demand. Ibid.

Taxes are not debts within the meaning of the Code,
Art. 93, Sec. 109. They are not demands against which
a set-off is admissible ; nor are they contracts between party
and party, either express or implied, but they are the posi-
tive acts of the government, binding upon the inhabitants,
and to the making and enforcing of which their consent
is not required. Ibid.

The situs for the taxation of the securities belonging to
the estate of the decedent is the place of administration.
Ibid.

An executor has the right to retain the money to pay a
paving tax bill, due for paving in front of decedent's prop-
erty, and which accrued during his life time. Handy v.
Collins, 60 Md. 229.

Where the administrator is among the creditors of the
decedent his claim must be proved under the provisions of
the Code, Art. 93, Sec. 95, before being approved by
the Orphan's Court. Watson v. Watson, 58 Md. 442.

Alienor Liable for Taxes. Where property, after aliena-
tion, is allowed to remain on the tax books of the
county, assessed to the alienor, and he fails to avail him-
self of the means provided by law to have the assessment
corrected, he is liable for taxes on such property, and they

Maryland Tax Digkst. 5

may be recovered in an action of indebitatus assumpsit
against him by the County Commissioners. Frederick
County v. Clagett, 31 Md. 210.

•
No person shall be chargeable with the assessment of

property which he may have alienated, but the same shall
be chargeable to the alienee; and the Appeal Tax Court
shall, from time to time, correct the account of any person
who may have parted with the possession of any property,
and the same so taken off shall be charged to the person
who may have acquired possession of the property. Balti-
more City Charter, Sec. 166. Query: Does not this enact-
ment nullify the decision of the Court of Appeals in Clagett's
Case, supra t

Annex Block Boundaries. A certain block of ground in
the annexed territory was bounded on three sides by regu-
lar city streets paved and kerbed and on the fourth side by
an alley graded and paved throughout its length with cob-
blestones but without kerbs. Held that this block of ground
is bounded by streets and alleys graded and opened within
the meaning of the Act of 1902, and the fact that the pav-
ing of the alley was in bad condition and that it was not
kerbed does not prevent it from being considered as a boun-
dary within the requirements of the statute, and consequently
that landed property within this block is subject after the
year 1900 to the city tax rate. Baltimore v. Rosenthal, 102
Md. 298.

6 Maryland Tax Digest.

Annex Blocks Exceeding 200,000 Square Feet. The

property is situate in that part of Baltimore City known as
the Annex, and for the year 1908, it was classified at the full
city rate on the "assessed value. S'aid property is situated in
an area of ground bounded by Linden avenue, Ducatel street,
Bolton avenue (now Brookfield avenue) and Whitelock
street; it is agreed that the area bounded by these streets
contains 200,660 superficial square feet ; that Linden avenue
and Ducatel and Whitelock streets are graded, paved and
kerbed; that Bolton avenue is a private street, paved with
cobblestones and kerbed. It is admitted that the block of
ground contains 660 superficial square feet in excess of
the number of superficial square feet fixed and prescribed
by the Act of 1902, Chapter 130. To subject the property
in this block to be taxed at the full city rate, it is urged upon
the part of the appellant that this slight excess of 660 feet
should be disregarded and ignored by us, and the provisions
of the statute waived in favor of the city. We have ex-
amined this condition in the light of the facts set out in the
record and can find no valid reason why the Court should
waive the plain provision of the statute, or disturb the rule
established by this Court in its previous decisions in the
Annex tax cases. Baltimore v. Harris, 113 Md. 228.

In Baltimore v. Gail, 106 Md. 686, we said that the Acts
of 1888, Chap. 98, and 1902, Chap. 130, have been con-
sidered by this Court in a number of cases, but in none
of them has the Court evinced the slightest purpose to
weaken the force or narrow the scope of their provisions.
Those acts prescribe the conditions under which the full

Maryland Tax Digest. 7

city rate may be imposed, and it can only be imposed upon
the conditions therein expressed. It would be not only a
hardship upon the taxpayer of the Annex to impose that
rate upon other and different conditions, but to do so would
be an unwarrantable exercise of the taxing power of the
city. Ibid.

Lots of ground, in a block exceeding 200,000 superficial
square feet, bounded on all sides by streets and paved from
kerb to kerb, which exceed 200 feet in depth, are to be clas-
sified as rural property. Baltimore v. Knell, 111 Md. 583.

Under the Act of 1902, Chap. 130, lots situated in a
block of ground in the Annex, one boundary of which is an
unpaved lane, is not subject to the full city rate. A private
alley running through a block exceeding 200,000 square feet
cannot be regarded as a boundary to divide the block into
areas of less than 200,000 feet. Ibid.

A turnpike road used and graded as a street may be
treated as one of the boundaries of a block under the Act
of 1902, Chap. 130. Coulston v. Baltimore, 109 Ml. 271.

Annex Property — When Liable for Full City Rate.

The Legislature has defined the class of annex property
which shall be liable to the full city rate, and, when it
reaches the standard of development required by the statute,
it becomes the duty of the Appeal Tax Court to so list,
classify or adjust the property upon the tax books in order
that it may be liable for the proper tax. In other words,
the Legislature has said that the property in the Annex

8 Maryland Tax Digest.

should be exempt from the payment of taxes at the full city
rate for a definite period, but after the year 1900, and when
it has sustained a certain stage of development, it should
be taxed at the full city rate. When, therefore, property
in the Annex reaches the prescribed development it falls
within the class of property the Legislature clearly meant
should pay the city rate. Sains v. Fisher, 10(5 Md. 107.

Annexation Act not a Contract. The Act of 1902 de-
fining the terms used in the original annexation act of 1888
(annexing certain adjacent territory to Baltimore City) is a
constitutional exercise of power and is not open to the ob-
jection that it impairs the contract formed by the Act of
1888, since this act was not a contract but a grant of the
sovereign power of taxation to the municipality of Balti-
more and could be withdrawn or modified at the pleasure of
the Legislature. Joesting v. Baltimore, 97 Md. 589.

Appeals From Assessments. Under the Act of 1914 all
appeals from the assessments made by County Commis-
sioners or the Appeal Tax Court of Baltimore, or because
of their refusal to reduce or abate existing assessments,
must be to the State Tax Commission and not to the
Courts as heretofore provided by Code 1911, Art. 81, Sec.
18. If the question involved, however, be one of law and
not of fact, appeal may be had to the Courts. See Appen-
dix for State Tax Commission Act.

If the property owner who feels aggrieved by an assess-
ment fails to pursue the remedy pointed out by the Code,

Maryland Tax Digest. 9

Art. 81, Sec. 18, he cannot be relieved in equity save in a
strong case. O'Neal v. Virginia Bridge Co., 18 Md. 23.

Chapter 430 of the Act of 1910 granting appeals from
the refusal of County Commissioners to abate assessments
refers to existing assessments only and such as may prop-
erly be made by the County Commissioners from time to
time, and not as to such as are made by them when acting
as a board of control and review under the law for the
general reassessment. Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co. v.
Allegany County, 116 Md. 220.

Every taxpayer is entitled to a full and fair hearing when
his property is assessed and before an assessment is in-
creased, and in the Annex to Baltimore City before an in-
creased rate of taxation is imposed ; the City Charter and
laws of the State afford him ample protection, and when
he fails to resort to his remedy he cannot recover taxes paid
by him merely because in a suit by the city against another
party for a similar tax the law was substantially declared
invalid. Baltimore v. Harvey, 118 Md. 285.

Chap. 300 of the Act of 1910 authorizes appeals from
county boards of control only where the complainant
alleges that the property assessed is exempt or that he is
not the owner. Under the Act there is no right of appeal
to the Circuit Courts on the ground that the value placed on
the property is excessive. Under Chap. 430, of the Acts
of 1910, appeals may be taken from the refusal of the
County Commissioners to abate existing assessments. Ches-
apeake & Potomac Telephone Co. v. Allegany Co., 116 Md.
233-4.

10 Maryland Tax Digest.

Under Sec. 170, of the Charter of Baltimore City, the
Court of Appeals is not required to review the findings
of fact as to the correctness of the valuation of property
for taxation. Baltimore v. Bonaparte, 93 Md. 156.

The Court of Appeals cannot be required to sit as a
board of review to revise the amount of the valuation placed
by assessors upon property for taxation, but when the
record shows that a valuation has been imposed in a
capricious or unwarrantable way instead of by the exercise of
judgment, then such valuation would not be an assessment
at all. Consolidated Gas Co. v. Baltimore, 101 Md. 541.

Assessment for Special Benefits, a Right That has Been
Long Exercised. The objection that benefits are not as-
sessable on account of the improvements because a special
fund has been appropriated for that object, is fully met
by the decision of this Court in Lauer v. Baltimore, 110 Md.
447. In that case an assessment in connection with the
opening of a street in the Baltimore City Annex was re-
sisted on the ground that the act of 1904, Chap. 247, created
a loan of two million dollars which was "to be used onlv
for the purpose of providing the costs and expenses of con-
demning, opening, grading, paving and kerbing the streets,
avenues, lanes, and alleys" of that portion of the city. * * *
The present case is controlled by the same considerations.
There is nothing in the Act relating to the Fallsway to
qualify or restrict the Charter power of the city of the Com-
missioners for Opening Streets to assess property benefited

Maryi^and Tax Digest. 11

by such an undertaking. P. B. & W. R. R. v. Baltimore,
121 Md. 504.

The right to assess property in particular localities to
the extent that it is deemed specially benefited by local im-
provements is to be referred to the power of taxation and
has been recognized and sanctioned in all the states. The
theory on which such assessments is made is that those whose
property is thus enhanced, and who thus receive peculiar ben-
efits from the improvements, should contribute specially to
defray its cost, 1 Lewis Eminent Domain, Sec 5 ; Gould v.
Baltimore, 59 Md. 378 ; Hagerstown v. Startzman, 93 Md.
609. The power to make such assessments has been ex-
pressly granted to the "Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
for a long time. Lauer v. Baltimore, 110 Md. 447.

The right to make benefit assessments is undoubtedly an
exercise of the taxing power. Gould v. Baltimore, 58 Md. 46.

In the payment of the assessment thus made, the adjacent
owner is supposed to be compensated by the enhanced value
of his property arising from the improvements. Gould v.
Baltimore, 59 Md. 380.

To justify an assessment the improvement must be for a
public purpose since the public have no right to tax a citizen
to make improvements for his benefit solely. Streets which
are opened are public benefits, but the cost of opening and
improving them is assessed on adjoining owners on the
ground of private benefits. This is the precise ground upon
which the power of assessment is placed. Baltimore v.
Hanson, 61 Md. 465.

12 Maryland Tax Digest.

Whether an improvement authorized by the Mayor and
City Council will benefit the property along the line of such
improvement is a question left exclusively to their judgment,
and their determination in the premises is final and con-
clusive. The courts have no power to review such deter-
mination at the instance of the property owner specially
taxed. Baltimore v. Johns Hopkins Hospital, 56 Md. 1 ;
Moale v. Baltimore, 61 Md. 224.

The Legislature has the constitutional power to authorize
benefits to be assessed and levied by the Mayor and City
Council of Baltimore upon property adjacent to, as well as
within the limits, of the city. Brooks V. Baltimore, 48 "M'd.
265.

Excessive estimates of benefits derived may be corrected
on appeal by a court and jury. Alexander v. Baltimore,
5 Gill, 382.

The power of the Legislature to lay special taxes for
local improvements, and to impose special assessments for
road or street improvements, when not restricted by con-
stitutional provisions, is well settled and is supported by
numerous Federal and State decisions. Leser v. Wagner,
120 Md. 680.

A special assessment may be levied upon an executed con-
sideration for a public work already done. Ibid.

Where a street has been paved, and the property benefited
has been assessed under an ordinance subsequently de-
clared void, the Legislature has power to authorize the

Maryland Tax Digest. 13

city to levy special assessments against such property to
the extent of the special benefits derived by the property.
Baltimore v. Ulman, 79 Md. 482.

Assessment of a Distributed Estate Void. The admin-
istrator of an estate in Washington County, having been
appointed trustee by the heirs, converted the property into
cash and invested the proceeds in mortgages in another
state in which he resided. The property thus distributed
was reported by the Register of Wills to the County Com-
missioners, who assessed the administrator for the amount
reported. As there was no property remaining in the hands
of the administrator, having been distributed by order of
the Orphans' Court, before the levy and assessment was
made, the tax was illegal and void, and the County Commis-
sioners exceeded their powers. Nicodemus v. Hull, 93 Md.
367.

Assessments Generally — How the Power to Make and to
Correct and Increase Should be Exercised. The County
Commissioners and Appeal Tax Court are directed annually
to correct the assessment of the property in their respective
counties and the City of Baltimore. The powers delegated
are important, and no less important to the property owner
than to the public at large ; and therefore they should not
be attempted to be exercised in an arbitrary or capricious
manner; nor exercised in any case without due regard to
the rights of the property owner. He must have a right to
be heard, and that, too, before his rights are determined

14 MaryJvAnp Tax Digest.

by the only tribunal that can hear him in defense of his
rights. Allegany County v. N. Y. Mining Co., 76 Md. 554.

The County Commissioners admit that they fixed the in-
creased valuation in this case before giving notice. This is
justified upon no principle of justice, whether in a tax court
or any other court, to say nothing of the express injunc-
tion of the statute prohibiting such mode of proceedings. * *
Therefore the increased valuation of the plaintiff's property
was illegal and void. Ibid.

If the County Commissioners act within the scope of their
authority, and after complying with all the necessary condi-
tions precedent prescribed, such as the giving of the re-
quired notice, and the like, their judgment become final, and
is not the subject of review by any other tribunal, for the
correction of mere informalities or irregularities in their
proceeding, which may not involve the question of transcend-
ing authority. If, however, they proceed without the war-
rant of law, their proceedings will be restrained by a court
of equity as being illegal and void. Ibid.

Where a special authority to levy taxes is delegated it
must be strictly pursued. Kerr v. State, 3 H. & J. 564.

Though the County Commissioners make the levy on some
other day than the one set forth in the statute it is binding,
as the statute in that respect is merely directory. State v.
Homer, 34 Md. 569.

A tax collector, illegally appointed, though he gives
bond, is not authorized to act as such official, and all his acts
are unlawful. Burgess v. Pue, 2 Gill. 42.

Maryland Tax Digest. 15

i
j

If the property is indivisible, so that the value of the sev-
eral parts, those that are exempt from taxation under the
law and those that are not, cannot be ascertained, the amount
of the net income (from the academy or school) may be
capitalized as the basis of assessment. Frederick County v.
Sisters of St. Joseph, 48 Md. 42.

Assessments may be made by direct legislative act as
well as by the tax officials. Baltimore v. State, 105 M'd. 1.

In 1903 the Wilkens Company was organized under New
Jersey laws and the property of the individual firm of
Wilkens & Co. that preceded it was transferred to the cor-
poration. Taxes for the years 1903 and 1904 were paid in
the name of the individual firm by the officers of the com-
pany. But in July, 1905, upon their request, the assessment
was transferred to the corporation and a new assessment
was made upon the tangible property of the corporation on
a regular form furnished by the assessor and delivered
by an officer of the company to the Appeal Tax Court, the
valuation given by the appellant being adopted. Later, the
officials of the corporation protested against the assessment
upon the ground that it was illegal, because the City Char-
ter, Section 171, provides that the valuation of property as it
appears on the assessment books on October 1st shall be
the basis of the levy for the ensuing year. It appears from
the agreed statement that the transfer from the account of
Wilkens & Co. to that of the appellant was made at the sug-
gestion of the latter, and, under these circumstances, the
appellant is estopped from raising this objection. Wilkens
Co. v. Baltimore, 103 Md. 314.

16 Maryland Tax Digest.

Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Taxation and Exemptions —
Franchise and Gross Receipts Tax— Contract by State.

This suit is brought to recover a tax imposed by the Act.
of 1872, Chap. 234, on the gross receipts of all railroads
incorporated by, and doing business, in this State ; and it is
claimed that under Sec. 18, of the Act of 1826, the property
and franchises of the Company are exempt from any tax.
Sec. 18, of the Act of 1826, incorporating the Baltimore &
Ohio Railroad Company, provides 'That the said road or
roads, with all their works, improvements and profits, and
all the machinery of transportation used on said road, are
hereby vested in the said Company, incorporated by this
Act, and their successors forever ; and the shares of the
capital stock of said Company shall be deemed and con-
sidered personal estate, and shall be exempt from the im-
position of any tax or burthen." There is no provision in
the Act or in the then existing State Constitution reserving
the right to repeal or amend the charter of the appellee,
and the exemption therein granted is a contract between
the State and the corporations, State v. N. C. R. R. Co..
44 Md. 162, and therefore beyond the power of a subse-
quent Legislature to repeal or in any manner impair. In
Baltimore v. Railroad Co., 6 Gill, 292, the power to tax the
real and personal property of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad
Company, and its capital stock, and its shares of stock in the
hands of shareholders, was the sole question before the
Court, and all the Judges were of the opinion that no such
power existed.

Maryland Tax Digest. 17

We are of the opinion, therefore, that the gross receipts
of the appellees' entire road from Baltimore to the Ohio
River, and the gross receipts derived from the lateral roads
built by the appellee, and from all buildings and works
necessary and expedient to the operation of its road are ex-
empt from the imposition of any tax or burthen. And this,
too, whether said road or roads, and buildings, and works
were constructed with money derived from the subscrip-
tion to its capital stock, or from sales of its shares of stock,
or from money borrowed, and secured by mortgage, or from
the undistributed profits of the Company, or from all these
sources combined. State v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.,
48 Md. 70-75.

The buildings, elevators, wharves, piers and docks are
necessary for the business of the appellee as a common
carrier, for the purpose of receiving and storing grain
and freight shipped over its road after the same ltave
reached the place of destination, and previous to delivery
to the consignee or owner, and therefore they are exempt.
Ibid.

But the rights of the appellee in this respect are such as
pertain to its functions as a common carrier; and as such,
it has no right to own and use these structures for the stor-
age of grain and freight after the owner or consignee has
had a reasonable time to remove the same. The Act of 1826
does not authorize the appellee to carry on the business
of a warehouseman, and if these structures are owned and
used for carrying on a business separate and distinct from

18 Maryland Tax Digest.

its business as a carrier, then such structures are taxable
according to valuation as other real property. Ibid.

The Metropolitan Road built under the authority of a
Legislative Act, of 1865, and not under the original charter,
is liable to the gross receipts tax. Ibid.

The Act of 1826 confers no power on the appellee to ac-
quire steamship or steamboat lines, and the receipts from
these are liable to the tax on such receipts as are earned in
the State. Ibid.

All bonds of other railroads acquired by the Baltimore &
Ohio Railroad Company are taxable according to their mar-
ket value. Ibid.

[Note: In 1878 the General Assembly passed what was
known as the "Compromise Act, Chap. 155," by the terms
of which the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company agreed,
in return for the repeal of the Act of 1865 imposing a
twenty per cent. State tax on the receipts of the Metropoli-
tan Branch Railroad, to pay the gross receipts tax, then
fixed by law at one-half of one per centum. The Com-
pany has declined to pay subsequent increases of the gross
receipts tax, and suit is now pending to test the State's
rights in the premises.]

Bank Taxation — Legislative Acts — Taxing the Property
and Capital Stock of a Bank at the Same Time Would be
a Double Tax. It is perfectly understood that the stock
of a bank is the representative of the whole property; and

Maryland Tax Digest. 19

when a tax has been laid on the stock in the hands of the
shareholders, the real and personal estate of the company
becomes exempt from taxation. To tax both the real and
personal property, and the stock, would be a double tax, and
therefore illegal and unjust. Tax Cases, 12 G. & J. 117.

When the contract between the State and banks was
entered into in the year 1821, Act of 1821, Chap. 131, Sec.
11, the banks embraced by the statute were subject to a tax
of twenty cents on every hundred dollars of the capital
stock actually paid in, or which should thereafter be paid in,
to be appropriated as a fund for the establishment of free
schools; and the stipulation not to impose any further tax
''upon them during the continuance of their charters" was
intended, we think, to protect the banks against any addi-
tional tax for the period of twenty years which might be
imposed by the Legislature for State purposes. Under
the circumstances of this case, the words "further tax"
have no application to the City of Baltimore. And if the
object of the contract had been to exempt the banks from
all taxation, whether imposed by the State or City, it is
impossible to believe that the parties would not have em-
ployed more comprehensive terms and have used language
better calculated to accomplish their purpose. Gordon v.-
Baltimore, 5 Gill, 239.

It was the purpose of the Act of 1841, Chap. 23, to impose
both State and City taxes on the banks. The right of the
City to tax the stock, according to the interpretation which
we have put upon the contract, remains unaffected by any

20 Maryland Tax Digest.

constitutional inhibition. It was the intention of the Legis-
lature to subject this property to a City tax. But as to the
State tax the Act of 1841 was a violation of the Act of
1821. Ibid.

In this case the executor of an estate paid the tax on bank
stock to the City of Baltimore under a judgment obtained
in the Baltimore County Court. Subsequently, the executor
brought an action of assumpsit to recover. It is an estab-
lished principle, and not disputed by counsel for appellant,
that money paid on an execution issued upon a judgment
of a Court of competent jurisdiction, cannot be recovered
back, although it was afterwards discovered that the money
was not due, and the party is in a situation to prove the fact.
Ibid.

Being of the opinion that to tax the property of the bank
and its capital stock at the same time would be double
taxation, forbidden by our organic law, we cannot construe
the Act of 1876 as authorizing such double taxation. In the
case of a corporation chartered by the State it could not
be tolerated or enforced; and the appellee is entitled to be
protected against such an exaction. Under the Revised
Statutes of the United States, the State is left free to ex-
ercise the power of taxation of national banks, assessing
the same upon the real property of the bank, or upon the
shares of the capital stock, at the election of the State, in
accordance with our own Constitution and laws, and, only
in conformity with the rules applicable to the citizens and
corporations of the State. Frederick County v. Farmers'
and Mechanics' National Bank, 48 Md. 120.

Maryiand Tax Digest. 21

The shares of stock and the personal property of a foreign
corporation, owned by residents of "Maryland, is not double
taxation, and therefore is not unconstitutional. The tax on
shares is a tax on the owners, and the tax on the tangible
property of a corporation is a tax on the corporation.
Wilkens Co. v. -Baltimore, 103 Md. 312.

The fact that the personal property of Maryland cor-
porations is exempt from taxation, only the shares being
taxed, does not invalidate a tax on the personal property
of a foreign corporation, as the State has full power to
exempt any class of property as it may deem best accord-
ing to its views of public policy. Ibid.

For the recovery of the tax on the stock of the bank, the
State has no lien on the stock ; it can maintain no action at
law against Hie stockholders nor against the bank: nor
against any officer of the bank in his official character. Nor
can it maintain an action for money had and received against
any officer of the bank in his individual character. Yet,
under the Act of 18-L3, we are of the opinion that it has
a clear and unquestionable right to be paid out of the divi-
dends declared, the amount of the tax imposed on the as-
sessed value of the stock of the bank. State v. Mayhezv, si
Gill, 503.

Where an Act of the Legislature prescribed the method
for valuing bank stock, and the rate of taxation, it is a
legislative levy, without regard as to who may be the share
owners. Ibid.

22 Maryland Tax Dickst.

Code, Art. 81, Sec. 214, does not constitute an illegal
discrimination against national banks under Sec. 5219 of
the Revised Statutes of the United States, it not appearing
that this section in its practical operation resulted in re-
lieving the capital of private firms from equal taxation, and
all domestic incorporated banks and trust companies being
taxed at the same rate. National Bank of Baltimore v.
Baltimore, 92 Fed. 239. (Affirmed in 100 Fed. 24.)

Benevolent Institutions Entitled to Only Such Exemp-
tions as Are Specifically Granted. The bill in this case was
filed to obtain an injunction to restrain the collection of
taxes from the appellee, upon the ground that the property
upon which the taxes were assessed had been exempted from
taxation by law. The appellee is a benevolent institution
and is the owner of what is known as "The Masonic Tem-
ple," a building located in the City of Baltimore. It is only
the upper portion of this building that is used by the appellee
for the purposes of the lodge, and the lower portion has
been constructed into storerooms and halls, and as such
rented out and used, and the revenue derived therefrom
has been received and applied to the purposes of the asso-
ciation. It is upon the capitalization of such rentals that the
assessment in question has been made, and not upon the
whole building itself ; but the rate of such capitalization does
not appear. * * * *

By the Act of 187(5, Chap. 260, sec. 2, the buildings of
charitable or benevolent institutions, so far as used for their
corporate purposes, and the ground upon which such build-

Maryland Tax Digest. 2:\

ings stood, were exempt from taxation ; and under that ex-
emption, and in respect to this same building, the Court held,
in Appeal Tax Court v. Grand Lodge, 50 Md. 421, that to the
extent of the rentals received the appellee was liable to taxa-
tion. And we have not been able to perceive anything in the
subsequent legislation to relieve the appellee from that lia-
bility. Baltimore v. Grand Lodge of Masons, (>0 Md. 280.

The right of taxation is never presumed to be relin-
quished ; and before any party can rightfully claim an ex-
emption from the common burden, it is incumbent upon that
party to show affirmatively that the exemption claimed is
authorized by law. If there be a real doubt upon the sub-
ject, that doubt must be resolved in favor of the State;
and it is only where the exemption is shown to be granted in
terms clear and unequivocal that the right of exemption can
be maintained. Ibid.

This case is strictly analogous to, and falls directly with
the principle of Proprietors of Meeting House v. City of
Lowell, 1 Met. 541, and which was quoted with approval
by this Court, in deciding the case of Frederick County
v. Sisters of Charity of St. Joseph, 48 'Md. M. In the case
thus quoted with approval, the exemption was, by the terms,
of the Statute, of "all houses of religious worship, and the
pews and furniture within the same." The plaintiffs were
authorized to purchase a site for a meeting house, and to
erect such house thereon. They erected a building, the upper
story of which was divided into pews, and furnished for re-
ligious purposes, and the lower story was fitted up as stores.

24: Maryland Tax Digest.

And such being the nature of the property, it was held that
the exemption of the statute extended only to that part of
the property which was used as a place of worship, and for
purposes connected therewith ; and, as to the part of the
building devoted to the stores, that was held liable to be
taxed as other property. That case, assuming it to have
been rightly decided, would seem to be quite conclusive of
the present. Ibid.

" Block of Ground." The Act of 1902, Chap. 130, de-
clares what shall be "landed property," within Sec. 19,
Chap. 98, of the Acts of 1888, and distinctly provides that a
"block of ground" shall be construed to mean an area of
ground not exceeding two hundred thousand superficial
square feet, formed and bounded on all sides by inter-
secting avenues, streets or alleys, opened, graded, kerbed
and otherwise improved from kerb to kerb by pavement,
macadam, gravel or other substantial material. Sindail v.
Baltimore, 93 Md. 534 ; Sams v. Fisher, 106 Md. 155 ; Hiss
v. Baltimore, 103 Md. 621.

The Act of 1888, Chap. 98, as amended by the Act of
1902, Chap. 130, prescribes the conditions under which
the full city rate may be imposed, and it can only be imposed
upon the conditions therein expressed. It would be not
only a hardship upon the taxpayer of the Annex to impose
that rate upon other and different conditions, but to do so
would be an unwarranted exercise of the taxing power of
the City. Baltimore v. Gail, 106 Md. 686.

Maryland Tax Digest. 25

The block not being subject to the full city rate, there
was no authority in the Court to carve out certain portions
of it and impose the full rate merely because the owners
of certain portions of the block had paved, in the manner
shown by the evidence, certain private alleys for the con-
venience of their lots. Such a construction would produce
a condition which the Legislature could never have con-
templated. Baltimore v. S chafer, 107 Md. 38.

It would be exceedingly dangerous where the law is
specific and plain, as in this case, as to what constitutes a
block of ground, and the amount of the superficial square
feet fixed by the statute is certain and definite, for the
Courts to ignore and to waive the plain provision of the
statute, as urged here. It would practically make uncertain
that which the statute and the decisions of this Court have
settled and made certain. Baltimore v. Harris, 113 Md. 231.

Bonded Indebtedness not Taxable. The bonded in-
debtedness of a corporation, under the Maryland statutes,
does not constitute any part of its assessable property.
Consolidated Gas Co. v. Baltimore, 101 Md. 541.

Bonds of B. & 0. and N. C. Railroads Taxable. The ap-
pellees insist that the bonds of the Baltimore & Ohio Rail-
road Company and the Northern Central Railway Company
are exempt from taxation because they represent the share
or part of certain mortgages on the property of the afore-
said railroads held by the appellees. It is not alleged that
the bonds for which exemption is claimed are secured by

26 Maryland Tax Digest.

mortgage, by property within the State, but it is admitted
that the mortgages, securing the same, include property
within and without the State. Without inquiring into the
reason of the. discrimination between mortgages on property
within and without the State, it is sufficient to say, the
bonds assessed in this case do not come within the terms of
the exemption, and it is an unyielding rule of law, that ex-
emptions claimed under legislative Acts, should be rigidly
construed and established beyond reasonable doubt. Appeal
Tax Court v. Gill, 50 Md. 395.

Bonds of Tax Collectors — Liability of Sureties
Thereon. The fact that the collector was a defaulter at the
time of his reappointment, for taxes collected by him in
previous years, and that this information had not been
imparted to them by the County Commissioners who made
the reappointment, cannot be pleaded as a defense on an
action on the bond. Froztmfelter v. State, 66 Md. 85.

The sureties on a tax collector's bond cannot plead that
their principal had no legal title to the office of collector, or
that he was responsible for the conduct of such office. Ibid.

Under the Act of 1794, Chap. 53, a surety on a tax col-
lector's bond cannot defend himself on the ground that the
required oath had not been taken by the collector. Lauren-
son v. State, 7 H. & J. 339.

When the County Commissioners give an order, drawn
on a proper fund, directing the collector to pay a certain
sum to a third party, and the collector promises to pay it

Maryland Tax Digest. 27

but fails to pay it, his sureties are liable for the amount.
Fidelity Co. v. Charles County, 98 Md. 163.

Bonus Tax on Capital Stock. A corporation cannot
maintain an action for libel before its bonus tax is paid.
There is no legal existence to a corporation until its bonus
tax has been paid. National Shutter Bar Co. v. Zimmer-
man, 110 Md. 317.

A party sued by a corporation which has not paid the
bonus tax may plead that fact in bar of further proceed-
ings. The corporation cannot maintain its action by paying
the tax after suit has been brought. Maryland Tube Works
v. West End Imp. Co., 87 Md. 210.

A subscription to the stock of a corporation which has
not paid its bonus tax is a nullity, unless the subscriber
chooses to ratify it after the tax has been paid. Murphy v.
Wheatley, 102 Md. 504; Cleaveland v. Mullin, 96 Md. 603.

Book Values Improper Criterion for Valuing Securities.

The book value alone of shares of stock is neither a safe
nor a true measure of their actual value. Schley v. Mont-
gomery County, 106 Md. -111.

Boundaries — An Alley Need not be Kerbed to Make it
A Boundary. This is an appeal from a decree which per-
petually enjoined the appellant from levying taxes for
municipal purposes against the appellee, as the owner of
certain property in the City of Baltimore, at a rate in ex-

28 Maryland Tax Digest.

cess of sixty cents per one hundred dollars. The property
is in the block bounded by Whitelock street, North avenue,
Eutaw place and Madison avenue. There is an alley known
as Morris alley running from North avenue to Whitelock
street about midway between Eutaw Place and Madison
avenue. Appellee contends that his property is not subject
to the city rate of taxation because Morris alley is not paved
within the meaning of the Act of 1902, and that it has no
kerbs as required by that act. The evidence abundantly
shows that the alley was opened, paved and graded within
the meaning of the act. The fact that the paving is in bad
condition would not justify this Court in declaring it not
to be embraced within the meaning of the statute. * * It
would be remarkable if the Legislature intended that the
mere failure to place kerbstones either on the outside limits,
or within those limits, should have the effect contended for
in this case. * * To hold that all alleys must be kerbed
in the way streets usually are, would, in many instances,
destroy the usefulness of alleys. * * The decree of the
lower court will be reversed and the bill dismissed. Balti-
more v. Rosenthal, 102 Mi 298.

In the present case there is no kerbing, consisting of a line
of stone, set in the ground in a vertical position, but that
which is substituted for it, is, for the purposes of the Act
of 1902, Chap. 130, to be regarded as the kerb of the street.
It could not have been the intention of the Legislature, nor
can it be within the meaning of the Act, that the property
upon a street or avenue paved and improved in the manner
adopted by those interested in the development of it, and

Maryland Tax Digest. 29

paved and improved to the same extent as if the kerbstone,
and not the rebut, had been used, should be perpetually
exempt from taxation at a rate to which it would other-
wise be liable had the kerbstone been used. Smith v. Bal-
timore, 120 Md. 151.

This is not the first time this question has been before
this Court. In the case of Baltimore v. Rosenthal, 102 Md.
298, the Court was called upon to decide whether or not
an alley not kerbed could be regarded as a boundary of a
block. Judge Boyd, in speaking for the Court, said: "If
it be true that this alley was paved with cobblestones from
its eastern to its western limits, it would be remarkable if
the Legislature intended that the mere failure to place kerb-
stones, should have the effect contended for in this case.
It is neither necessary nor usual to kerb an alley used for
such purposes as this one. Streets are sometimes paved
from building line to building line with vitrified brick, or
other material, without any kerbstone, and yet it cannot be
possible that the mere absence of kerbstones was intended
to result in exempting property in the Annex from the
paying of taxes at the regular rates, simply because there
was no kerbstones, although the street in all other respects
was improved as required by the statute." This case, in our
opinion, is decisive of the question here presented. Ibid.

A turnpike road, graded as a street, and so used, may
properly be regarded as one of the boundaries of landed
property in the Annex under the Act of 1902, Chap. 130.
Coulston v. Baltimore, 109 Md. 271.

30 Maryland Tax Digest. .

It is not provided in the Act of 1902, amendatory to the
Act of 1888, that such streets, avenues and alleys shall be
public and not private as claimed by the appellant, although
since the passage of the Act of 1902 this Court had held in
Coulston v. Baltimore, 109 Md. 271, that it was not essen-
tial to the right of the city to impose the full tax rate that
the streets and avenues bounding the block should be public
and not private. Smith v. Baltimore, 120 Md. 149.

Bridges — Taxation of. Bridges across streams in Mary-
land are taxable in the county in which they are situated,
though the corporation owning the bridge has its principal
office outside the State. O'Neal v. Virginia & Maryland
Bridge Co., 18 Md. 21.

Building Association Exemptions. As to the exemp-
tion of the shares of homestead and building associations
represented by mortgages of land, the character of those as-
sociations, which are not intended to be money-making cor-
porations, is such that the exemption cannot be considered
as arbitrary. Simpson v. Hopkins, 82 Md. 490.

The Act of 1896, Chap. 120, providing for the taxation
of mortgage debts, does not include the mortgages of build-
ing associations, since the amount advanced under such a
mortgage by the association to a member upon the value of
his shares of stock is not a debt secured by mortgage in the
sense in which that word is used in the Act, and the exemp-
tion of building associations from taxation by the Code

Maryland Tax Digkst. 31

Art. 23, Sec. 99, is not repealed by the Act of 1896. Faust
v. Building Association, 84 Md. 186.

Burden of Proof in Tax Appeals. The rule regulating
the burden of proof in special judicial proceedings is the
same that governs where an issue has been formulated by
the pleadings. He who asks affirmative relief, one for
example who appeals from an order * * * has the burden
of convincing the Court that action should be taken in his
favor. 16 Cyc. 931. Quoted by the Court in Baltimore v.
Hurlock, 113 M'd. 677.

Capital Stock Tax is a Tax on the Shareholders.

It has been repeatedly held by this Court that the tax upon
the capital stock is not a tax upon the corporation, but upon
the owners of that stock, the corporation being made the
medium through which the tax is collected. This is in strict
accord and analogy with the case of the Monticello Co. v.
Baltimore, 90 Md. 416, in which McSherry, C. J., in speak-
ing of the distilled spirits there sought to be taxed in the
hands of the warehouseman, says: "Though the language
employed, like that used in many other assessment laws,
if read literally, would indicate an intention to impose the
tax on the property and not on the owner of it, that is not its
meaning when considered in connection with the settled
policy of Maryland as announced in the Declaration of
Rights. We hold, then, that the tax is upon the owner of
the spirits and not specifically upon the spirits." Union
Trust Co. v. State, 116 Md. 375. See also Am. Coal Co. v.
Allegany County, 59 Md. 185.

32 Maryland Tax Digest.

Cattle. Cattle purchased out of Maryland and brought,
here to be exported are assessable here ; they are not taxed
as exports, but as part of the general mass of property in
the State. Myers v. Baltmore County, 83 Md. 387.

The assessment of cattle brought to this State for ship-
ment to foreign countries does not constitute the levying of
a duty on exports. Ibid.

Just as the stock of goods, carried by merchants, is taxed
at the average value, so a stock of cattle is taxable as prop-
erty within the State in the same way. Ibid.

Cemeteries not Exempt From Paving Tax. The ex-
emption of a cemetery from taxation does not exempt it
from the payment of a paving tax levied by the municipality.
Dolan v. Baltimore, 4 Gill, 395.

Cemetery Improvements not Subject to Taxation.

The charter of the Baltimore Cemetery Company, granted
by the Legislature, provided that "the land of the Com-
pany dedicated to the purposes of a cemetery, is declared
not to be subject to taxation." It is contended that the ex-
emption does not include the improvements, because the Act
of 1876 requires assessors, in valuing real estate, to "sep-
arately value the improvements thereon." But this require-
ment was not designed to convert the improvements into
personalty, or to separate them from the realty. In our
judgment, the exemption of the lands from taxation neces-
sarily embraces also an exemption of the permanent im-

Maryland Tax Digest. 33

provements thereon (being gate houses, etc.) which are
essential to the use and enjoyment of the land for the pur-
pose contemplated in the charter. Appeal Tax Court v.
Baltimore Cemetery Co., 50 Md. 435.

Church Property Sold After Time of Assessment.

On October 1, 1901, the lot and building at the corner of
Fulton and Pennsylvania avenues, Baltimore, was owned by
a church, being exempt from taxation. On November 8r
15)01, it ceased to be used as a church, John Jenkins having
purchased it. On December 27, 11)01, the Appeal Tax
Court assessed the properly for 11)02 to Jenkins at $1,700.
He appealed to the City Court, contending that he could
not be taxed on the property for 1902 as on the first of
October, 1901, it was exempt under the law. That conten-
tion was sustained by the lower court. Held, That under
Sec. 171 of the City Charter, no property other than cor-
porate property not subject to taxation on October first
in each year can enter into the taxable basis for the ensuing
fiscal year though it become subject to taxation on the next
day. The point of time and the rule of law which control
are alike arbitrary, and necessarily so, but are none the less
final and conclusive, without authority and without argu-
ment. The power given in Sec. 171 to assess after October
first "property escaped or omitted," is confined to property
which was the subject of taxation on October first. Balti-
more v. Jenkins, 96 Md. 195.

Coal Tax Unconstitutional — Capital Stock of Mining
Companies — Uniformity of Tax Burdens Required. The

34 Maryland Tax Digest.

Act of 1872, Chap. 274, provided that it shall not be lawful
for any coal mining company in this State to transport any
coal mined in the State, to be sold, until a state tax of two
cents per ton^on said coal had been paid as provided for in
the Act. This suit is for the recovery of the amount of the
tax on the coal transported by defendant. The Act makes
no discrimination between that portion of the coal that may
be transported to places within the State for sale and that
portion transported beyond the State for sale. As to all
such portions of the coal as may be transported beyond the
limits of the State for sale, the tax would plainly appear
to be an interference with and a restriction over interstate
commerce, and hence in contravention of that provision of
the Federal Constitution which gives to Congress the power
to regulate commerce among the several states.' * * *
Without saying more in regard to this question, we are of
the opinion that the Act of 1872, Chap. 274, so far as it
affects to impose the tax upon coal transported from the
mines in this State to places beyond the State for sale, is
unconstitutional and void. State v. C. & P. R. R., 40 Md.
48.

The State is at liberty to tax her internal commerce, but
if an Act to tax interstate commerce be unconstitutional it
is not cured by including in its provisions subjects within
the taxing power of the State. This is explicitly decided
by R. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 15 Wall, 276, 277. Ibid.

The Act of 1872 is violative of Art. 15 of the Bill of
Rights, in that it is a direct and specific tax upon coal, and,

Maryland Tax Digest. 35

therefore, a tax upon property. It is not assessed with ref-
erence to any uniform value of the coal, nor in conformity
to any rate of taxation imposed upon others' property in the
State. It is, therefore, a specific, arbitrary tax on a part of
the personal property of the State, without regard to value,
uniformity or equality. Ibid.

The capital stock of the mining companies of the State
is liable to taxation according to a fixed and certain rate;
the payment of the tax on the capital stock exempts from
taxation all the property, both real and personal of the com-
pany. Though the State may elect to tax either the capital
stock, or the real and personal property of the company,
yet it cannot tax both ; whichever it elects to tax, such prop-
erty must be assessed to an equal and uniform rate, in pro-
portion to its value, as all other property in the State. Ibid.

All must bear their burden alike. It is not competent for
the Legislature to discriminate as between the different
species of property and to tax some by one rule and some
by another. Ibid.

Collateral Inheritance Tax. A non-resident decedent
being entitled to a one-fourth interest in the personal estate
of a deceased brother in this State, letters of administration
on his estate were taken out in Maryland. The administra-
tors received sundry stocks and bonds which were held by
them for delivery to the residuary legatee, resident of the
State in which decedent died, there being no lineal descen-
dants. Held that under the Code 1888, Art. 81, sec. 102,

36 Maryland Tax Digest.

a collateral inheritance tax on the value of said personal
property was payable to the State of Maryland. State v.
Dalrymple, 70 M'd. 305.

There can be no doubt that the Legislature has the power
to impose a collateral inheritance tax, not only where it
affects citizens of the State, but also where non-residents
or aliens claim by inheritance or by will, property located
here. Every State in the Union has the authority to regu-
late by law the distribution of an intestate's property sit-
uated within the jurisdiction of that State. Ibid.

Oixc ol the conditions upon which strangers and colla-
teral kindred may acquire a decedent's property, which is
subject to the dominion of our laws, is that there shall be
paid out of such property a tax of two and a half per cent,
into the treasury of the State. Ibid.

There is not the slightest doubt as to the constitutionality
of the collateral inheritance tax law. Tyson v. State, 2S
Md. 585.

A resident of Baltimore left a large estate to trustees
to hold in trust for his wife, with power to the wife to de-
vise the property on her death as she might wish. The
widow died and left a will which bequeathed the whole
estate to a charitable institution. It is plain that upon the
probate of the will of the widow, she having executed the
power vested in her by her husband's will, the estate there-
upon became subject to the collateral inheritance law. Fisher
v. State, 106 Md. 120.

Maryland Tax Digest. 37

The collateral inheritance tax is upon the value of the
property, not at the time of the testator's death, but at the
time it is transferred to the beneficiary. Ibid.

If an administrator or executor of an estate pays out
money to a legatee, and does not retain the collateral in-
heritance tax the State may recover from such legatee.
Montague v. State, 51 Md. 483.

Contract Between State and Corporation Providing for
Limited Exemption From Taxation — Power of Legislature
to Repeal. This appeal presents the important question
whether so much of the Act of 1880, Chap. 16, as granted
to the appellee an exemption from taxation on the gross
revenues from its property in Maryland, beyond the annual
rate of one-half of one per cent, was subject to repeal by a
subsequent Legislature. If it is determined that the Act was
subject to repeal, then the further question arises whether
it was in fact repealed by the Act of 1890, Chap. 559, which
imposes a tax of one per cent, per annum on the gross re-
ceipts of all railroads in the State operated by steam. The
appellee enjoyed the exemption of its property in Mary-
land from taxation, thus secured to it by the Act of 185!,
down until 1866, when the Legislature passed a general as-
sessment law, which provided for the assessment of all prop-
erty in the State, and also repealed in general terms all laws
exempting property from taxation. Then followed the Act
of 1872, which imposed a tax of one-half per centum upon
the gross receipts of steam railroads. Under the last men-
tioned law a tax was levied on the appellee of one-half

38 Maryland Tax Digest.

per cent, of the gross receipts of its Maryland property for
part of the year 1872 and all of the year 1873. This tax
the appellee refused to pay and the State brought suit to
recover it, and the judgment being against the State it
brought the case here on appeal, and it is reported in 44 Md.
131 {State v. N. C. Ry. Co.). This Court held the appellee
to be liable for the tax and reversed the judgment of the
lower Court. * * *

Then followed the Act of 1880 and 1890, the latter rais-
ing the annual rate of tax upon the gross receipts of steam
railroad companies to one per cent. The appellee paid the
increased rate of tax upon the gross receipts of its property
in Maryland, under protest, until 189G, when it refused to do
so any longer, and the present suit was brought to recover
the tax for 1896. The Court below declared that the Act
of 1880 constituted a contract irrepealable without the con-
sent of the appellee, by which it was exempted from paying
more than one-half per cent, tax upon its gross revenue,
from which verdict the State appealed. It is clear that the
Act of 1880 and its acceptance by the appellee in this case
did not constitute a contract between it and this State, which
a subsequent Legislature could not repeal, because the Con-
stitution of 1851, which was in force when the Act of 1854
was passed, would have prevented the General Assembly
of 1880 from making an irrepealable grant of the exemption
from taxation. State v. N. C. Ry. Co., 90 Md. 470.

As to the question of whether the Act of 1890, Chap. :>59,
repealed the exemption from taxation, we think that the

Maryland Tax Digest. 39

exemption was so repealed, both because the language of
the repealing clause contained in the later act was broad
enough to cover it, and because of the plain inconsistency of
the provisions of the two Acts. Ibid.

Corporate Property not Liable to Distraint for the Pay-
ment of Taxes on Shares of Stock. The Southern Develop-
ment Company, of Hagerstown, is a body corporate. It
was charged on the assessment books of Washington County
with county taxes on the shares of its capital stock. The
taxes being unpaid for the year 1895, the Collector levied on
its real estate and subsequently sold the same to satisfy the
amount claimed to be due, not on the property sold, but on
the shares of its capital stock owned by its stockholders.
The ratification of the sale was objected to on various
grounds. The sale was finally set aside by the Circuit Court
and the Tax Collector then took this appeal. By. sec. 141,
Art. 81, of the Code, as amended by the Act of 1896, Chap.
120, it is in substance provided that the taxable value of
the capital stock of banks, corporations and joint stock com-
panies shall be ascertained by deducting the assessed value
of the real estate owned by the bank, corporation and joint
stock company from the aggregate value of all the shares
and by then dividing the residuum by the number of the
shares of the capital stock ; and the quotient is then de-
clared to be the taxable value of each share for taxation
by the State. It is further provided by the same section that
this valuation shall be certified to the County Commissioners
of the Counties and the Appeal Tax Court of Baltimore, by
the State Tax Commissioner, and that the taxable value o!

40 Maryland Tax Digest.

9

such shares owned by residents of this State shall, for county
and municipal purposes, be valued to the owners thereof in
the county or city in which such owners may reside. The
section then provides that said taxable values of such shares
of stock shall be collected from such bank or corporation
and when so paid shall be charged to the account of the
stockholders. * * * *

Though the statute prescribes that the tax shall be col-
lected from the corporation it nowhere authorizes a distraint
to enforce that collection. The power to distrain and sell
for non-payment of taxes is given by other sections of the
Code, Art. 81, sec. 49, et seq., but it is obvious these sec-
tions have no relation to this particular and peculiar pro-
vision imposing on the corporation the duty to collect for
the State and the counties the tax payable by the share-
holders on the capital stock owned by them. This is made
perfectly clear by reference to the Act of 1900, Chap. 844,
which adds sec. 88a, &c, to Art. 81 of the Code. By that
Act a remedy is provided against the corporation if it shall
neglect to pay the State tax due by the shareholders on their
shares of the capital stock and the remedy thus provided is by
suit against the corporation for the amount of the tax and a
further sum added by way of penalty. It is hardly stip-
posable that an express enactment prescribing a suit at
law would have been passed if the right to proceed in the
most speedy and summary way by distress existed. The
sole liability of the corporation grows out of a statutory duty
to collect, and not out of its failure to pay a tax primarily
due by it. The corporation owes the money to the county

Maryland Tax Digkst. 41

not as a taxpayer, but as a tax collector, and the prescribed
proceedings against the one is not available against the other.
Until a judgment is obtained against the corporation and an
execution is issued thereon, the property owned by the cor-
poration cannot be sold for the payment of the amount due
to the county as the tax on the shares owned by the stock-
holders. A sale thus made would be a sale by the sheriff
in view of legal proceedings and not a sale by the Tax Col-
lector. Hull v. Southern Development Company, 89 Md. 9.

Corporation Bonds Secured by Mortgage on Property
in This State Taxable. The appellee (City Collector of
Baltimore) sued to recover taxes for three years alleged to
be due on certain bonds of the Consolidated Gas Company
owned by the appellants. It is admitted that these bonds are
secured by a mortgage upon the property of the corporation
wholly within this State. It is contended by the appellee
that the bonds are liable to taxation under the Code, Art.
81, sec. 88, which provides that "all bonds and certificates
of debt bearing interest, issued by any railroad or other cor-
poration of this State, secured by mortgage of property
wholly within the State, shall be subject to assessment and
taxation to the owner or owners thereof in the same man-
ner as like bonds or certificates of debt bearing interest and
secured by mortgage of property and partly in some other
state or states are now subject to the laws of this State."
Sec. 4, of the same Article, provides that Sec. 88 shall not
apply to individual mortgages upon property wholly within
the State nor to the mortgage debts secured thereby. The

42 Maryland Tax -Digest,

appellants contend that the bonds are not liable to taxation
because Sec. 88 is unconstitutional in that it discriminates
between mortgages by corporations and individuals. It has
been settled that the Declaration of Rights constitutes no
bar to the right of the Legislature to exempt certain kinds
of propery from taxation when that exemption is not an
arbitrary discrimination in favor of a particular class.
Simpson v. Hopkins, 82 Md. 489.

We cannot consent to the proposition that the taxation
of the bonds of a corporation secured by mortgage, while
the debt of an individual so secured is exempt, is an arbi-
trary discrimination against corporations or the holders of
corporate securities. An individual's true worth for the
purposes of taxation consists of his real and personal prop-
erty, but in the case of a corporation its franchise, its bor-
rowing power, its earning capacity, its real worth are not
represented merely by its visible property and shares of
stock. The taxable value of a corporation is its bonded
indebtedness together with its stock. See State Tax Cases,
92 U. S. 605. Unless the discrimination be arbitrary, the
wisdom of the exemption within the discretion of the Legis-
lature is not subject to control by the courts. Ibid.

Nor can the alleged exemption of the bonds of a cor-
poration, which do not bear interest, be regarded as arbi-
trary discrimination. The difference between a security that
produces interest and one that does not, and the reasons for
the taxation of the one and the exemption of the other are
both clear and obvious. The true test of a taxable value is
the producing value to the owner. Ibid.

Maryland Tax Digest. 43

While there is no provision in terms for the taxation of
bonds secured by mortgage upon property partly within
and partly without the State, yet there can be no doubt
that such bonds are liable to taxation under the provisions
of Code j Art. 81, sec. 2, which provides for the taxa-
tion of "all bonds made or issued by any territory or cor-
poration belonging to residents of this State, all investments
in private securities of every kind and description belong-
ing to residents of this State, and all other property of every
kind, nature and description within this State." Ibid.

Corporation's Failure to Withhold Taxes. Where the
corporation does not withhold from the stockholders the tax
due on the shares of their stock (that were to be retired)
the corporation is itself liable for the taxes due the State
upon such shares. Union Trust Co. v. State, 116 Md. 378.

Corporations' Ground Rents Not to be Classed as Part
of Its Real Estate Within the Meaning of the Legislature.

The Act of 1880, Chap. 20, amending the Code, Art. 81,
sec. 151, as re-enacted by the Act of 1878, Chap. 178, pro-
vides that the president or other proper officer of every
corporation, formed under the laws of this State or doing
business therein, shall furnish a true statement of any real
property which it shall own or possess to the County Com-
missioners or the Appeal Tax Court of Baltimore City, ac-
cording to the location of said property, and such real prop-
erty shall be valued and assessed by the said Commissioners
or Tax Court, respectively, to the said corporation, and they

44 Maryland Tax Digest.

shall give duplicate certificates of such valuation and as-
sessment to such president or other officer, who shall trans-
mit one of such certificates, with his return of stock, to the
State Tax Commissioner, and taxes shall be paid by such
corporation on such assessment in the same manner as the
same are levied upon and paid by individual owners of real
property in such county or city, and that the Tax Commis-
sioner shall deduct the assessed value of such real property
from the aggregate value of all the shares of stock of such
corporation and divide the residuum by the number of shares
of the capital stock, and the quotient shall be the taxable
value of such respective shares of stock. It is contended
by the appellee that its reversionary interest in fee in certain
parcels of land in Baltimore City demised by it to various
tenants, under leases for 99 years, renewable forever, brings
it within the statutory provision just cited, and should have
been deducted from the valuation made by the Tax Com-
missioner of its capital stock, as being real estate of which
it is the owner; and, further, that the taxes upon the full
value of said lands having been paid by its lessees, not to
deduct the value of such interest from its capital stock
would be in effect to subject it to double taxation. * * *

In our construction of the law, the appellee is not to be
considered an owner of real estate within the contemplation
of the Act of Assembly, nor within the proper significance
of those words as used in connection with the established
tax system of the State. Those corporations only are to be
regarded as owners of real estate, the valuation of which is
to be deducted from the valuation of their stock, to whom

Maryland Tax Digest. 45

the land is directly assessable, and who are primarily charge-
able with the taxes thereon. It is only when a corporation is
thus liable for the taxes on real property that the law re-
lieves its stock as representative of that property. The rela-
tion between the land and the stock must be thus direct. It
is not such taxation as may incidentally burden the resources
or reduce the profits of corporations, and incidentally affect
the market value of their stock for which it is the design
or policy of the law to allow an abatement. Baltimore v.
Canton Company, 63 Md. 231.

It is not compatible with public convenience and the
prompt collection of revenue for the State to trace out all
the sub-divided or qualified interests that may be held in
real estate, and seek to hold the various owners responsi-
ble. Its policy is to assess the fee simple value of the land
to the holder of the possession, where its real owner is not
apparent or accessible, leaving the parties interested to
adjust the proportions of liability between themselves. This
general principle is stated in Burroughs on Taxation, 223,
as follows: "It is the fee simple in land that is assessed.
The law does not regard the different interests in the assess-
ment. It looks to the person having the present right of
enjoyment, whether the tenant for life or years, for the tax
on the fee simple value of the land, and such person is the
one to be assessed with the land." Ibid.

This policy is recognized in the Act of 1812, Chap. 91,
sec. 36, and with specific reference to leasehold estates. As
incorporated in the Code, Art. 81, sec. 73, Act of 1871, Chap.

46 Maryland Tax Digest.

483, sec. 65, it enacts: "The tenant or person holding the
leasehold estate shall pay to the collector of taxes levied on
the demised premises, and shall have his action against the
landlord for^the sum so paid, or may deduct the same out
of the rent reserved, unless otherwise agreed between the
lessor and lessee." By the force of this provision, the lessees
of the appellee, and not the appellee itself, are the owners
of the land in question and for the purposes of taxation.
Ibid. ...'.-■■-

The landlord's interest in the land is but a form of money
investment, analogous to that secured by a mortgage. And
when a corporation invests money in a mortgage, the ex-
emption of the mortgage debt from taxation does not ex-
empt the shares of stock of the corporation to the extent of
such investment. Emory v. State, 41 Md. 58. Nor is it
double taxation to tax the mortgagor on the full value of
the land he has mortgaged, and a corporation mortgagee on
the full value of its stock, when the mortgage is not exempt,
as in the case of building association mortgages. Appeal
Tax Court v. Rice, 50 Md. 319. Ibid.

The Tax Commissioner is a ministerical officer only in
making the abatement from the valuation of its capital stock
of the valuation of the real property of a corporation. He
acts solely upon the assessment of such real property, as
made by the County Commissioners or Appeal Tax Court,
evidenced by their certificate to be furnished the president or
other proper officer of the corporation, and by such officer
to be transmitted to him. The appellee took no steps to

Maryland Tax 'Digest. 47

enforce the delivery of such a certificate, which the state-
ment of facts sets out was not furnished, or to appeal from
the assessment said to have been made; and the Tax Com-
missioner had no power but to certify to the Appeal Tax
Court the assessed taxable value of its shares of stock, as
he had ascertained and affixed it. Ibid.

Corporation Mortgages not Exempt. The words of the
Act of 1870, Chap. 394, are "nor shall any tax of any kind be
assessed, levied or collected on any mortgages of any kind,
or on any mortgage (or) bill of sale, upon any property
in this State." We think, in passing this Act, the Legisla-
ture designed only to exempt from assessment and taxation
the mortgage debt, as such. The words refer to the instru-
ment, the mortgage itself, and declare that it shall not be
subject to taxation. To construe the law otherwise will
exempt from taxation the capital stock of all corporations,
to the extent that their loans may be secured by mortgage.
The law subjecting the capital stock to taxation, makes no
such exemption. * * * The Act exempting mortgages must
be held to apply only to the mortgage securities themselves,
and has no application to the taxation of the capital stock
of corporations, whether it be assessed at its par value or
at its actual market value. Emory v. State, 41 Md. 58.

The mortgages intended to be exempted by the Act of
1876 were mortgages upon property securing mortgage
debts. Such a conveyance usually contains a covenant to
repay, which raises a personal obligation on the part of the
mortgagor; the exemption in question only extends to, and

48 Maryland Tax Digest.

embraces mortgages and mortgage debts of this description.
Appeal Tax Court v. Rice, 50 Md. 310.

Corporation Statements — Date of Filing. As the law
formerly stood, there was quite a range of time within which
a corporation might select such date as it saw fit for making
up the statement and its return to the State Tax Commis-
sioner for the purpose of the valuation of its capital stock.
That fact invited and resulted in considerable juggling of
figures and tended to produce inequality in the administra-
tion of the law. Accordingly the present statute was passed,
by which the first day of January of each calender year was
fixed at the time as of which all such returns were to be
made, and the valuation of the stock determined, and such
legislation has been repeatedly sustained in this court. Hop-
kins v. Van JVyck, 80 Md. 15; Skinner Dry Dock Co. v.
Baltimore £H5 Md. 43. It must be regarded, therefore, as
settled that in this State that for the purpose of the taxation
of the capital stock of a corporation January first is to be
taken as the date with regard to which all elements are to
be reported, considered and established, conclusive alike upon
the State and the corporation. The same rule has been up-
held in this Court with regard to local taxation in the City of
Baltimore, both in the Skinner Dry Duck case and in the case
of Hamburger v. Baltimore, 106 Md. 47!) ; Union Trust Co.
v. State, 116 Md. 377.

Corporation Taxes — Payable to State Treasurer. By the
provisions of the Code, Art. 81, sec. 93, taxes imposed

Maryland Tax Digest. 49

under the Act of 1868, Chap. 371, and the Act of 1870,
Chap. 422, are payable to the State Treasurer and not to
local collectors, and the State may enforce their payment
by a writ of mandamus. Emory v. State, 41 Md. 54.

*

The Act of 1872, Chap. 419, repealing Code, Art. 81,
sec. 93, and substituting another section therefor, did not
relieve the officers of corporations from the payment of the
taxes levied upon their capital stock directly to the State
Treasurer, and the payment of such taxes may be en-
forced by a writ of mandamus. Ibid.

Corporation Taxes — When Due. Under the Act of
1890, Chap. 244, the taxes on shares of stock are due and
payable on November 1. State v. Safe Deposit and Trust
Co., 86 Md. 581.

County Commissioners Have No Power to Assess Rolling
Stock of Railway Companies. The County Commissioners
of a county in which is situated the principal offices of a
railway company, whose roads extend through other coun-
ties of the State, have no power to levy taxes on the rolling
stock of the company, since the Act of 1896, Chaps. 120
and 140, provide a special mode for the assessment of the
rolling stock of railway companies. B. C. & A. Ry Co. v.
Wicomico County, 93 Md. 114.

County Commissioners' Power to Refund. Code, Art.
25, sec. 9, makes it the duty of the County Commis-

50 Maryland Tax Digest.

sioners, when satisfied that any error has arisen by assessing
property not liable to be assessed, to refund to the proper
person any money that may have been paid in consequence
of such error. If the statute has created and imposed a
clear, positive duty, as we think it has, such as would be
required to support this application, to repay the taxes
erroneously levied and received, that statute simply operates
to change or modify the common law rule that taxes paid
under a mistake of law cannot be recovered back. That
being so, whether the taxes be paid under a mistake of fact
or a mistake of law, would make no difference, for in either
case the party receiving the taxes would be bound to refund
them ; and there would be an implied promise raised to pay
the amount so received, and upon that implied promise
an action for monev had and received could be maintained.
If the Commissioners should decline to repay, mandamus
would lie after judgment. George's Creek Co. v. Allegany
Co., 59 Md. 261.

Where taxes were improperly paid to a county instead of
to a city, if the city compels a second payment of the taxes,
the taxpayer may recover from the county. Frederick Co.
v. Frederick, 88 Md. 656.

See Baltimore v. Hussey, 67 Md. 112, where it was held
that money voluntarily paid, with full knowledge of the
facts, for taxes afterward held to be illegally assessed, could
not be recovered back, although paid by plaintiff through a
mistake as to her legal rights ; also Monticello Co. v. Balti-
more, 90 Md. 416, and Baker v. Baker, 94 Md. 627.

Maryland Tax -Dices?. 51

Inasmuch as there is a statute authorizing county com
missioners to refund money erroneously paid as taxes, either
by mistake of fact or of law, and that there is no such
statute applicable to Baltimore City, the presumption is that
it was purposely withheld from the city. Baltimore v.
Harvey, 118 Md. 282.

"Debts" and "Taxes." The word "debts" imparts the
money obligation of a person incurred in his private ca-
pacity. As defined by this Court in Baltimore v. Green-
mount Cemetery, 7 Md. 517, the word "tax" means "a bur-
den, charge or imposition put or set upon a person or prop-
erty for public uses." And in Cooley on Taxation, 13, it
is stated that "taxes are not debts in the ordinary sense of
that term, and their collection depends on statutory enforce-
ment." * * They are not contracts between party and
party ; they are positive acts of government to the making
and enforcing of which the personal consent of the in-
habitants is not required. Bonaparte v. State, 63 Md. 469.

Defective Notice to Delinquent Taxpayers Renders Void
the Tax Sale. This is an action of ejectment brought by
the appellant to recover certain leasehold property situated
in Baltimore City, and now in the possession of the appellee.
The defendants assert title under a deed of "March 30, 1S93,
from City Collector Hopkins, of Baltimore, made in pur-
suance of a sale of the property for taxes, due and in arrear
for the years 1889 and 1890. The deed and the tax sale
proceedings are attacked by the appellant and the questions

52 Maryland Tax Digest.

here involved turn upon the deed and the sufficiency of this
sale. There are two grounds of objection relied upon by
the appellant to the validity of the deed, and the tax sale;
first, because the Collector failed to give a legally sufficient
notice of the sale, and second, because the description of the
property given by the Collector in the advertisement of sale
was defective, and was not according to the requirements
of law, in that it failed to designate the property to be sold,
with such certainty as identified it. If these objections are
well taken they are fatal to the appellees' case, and it will
not be necessary for us to consider the other questions raised
by the record. It has been often decided by this Court
that the validity of tax sales depends on a substantial com-
pliance on the part of the Collector with all the essential
requirements of the statute. The notice required by the
statute is jurisdictional. Baumgardner v. Fowler, 82 Md.
631.

In the case before us, the report of the Collector states
that, thirty days prior to proceeding, bills setting forth the
amount of taxes due on the said property "and specifying
the year or years for which such taxes were due, were de-
livered to Mary A. Myers at her residence, 1703 Lemon
alley, in the City of Baltimore, the owner of such property."
It appears from the record and is not controverted by the
appellee, that Mrs. Mary A. Myers died in the year 1881,
so that notice for taxes due for the year 1889 and 1890
could not have been delivered to her at her residence, in the
manner stated in the Collector's report. No other notice
is alleged to have been given. The statute prescribes the

Maryland Tax Digest. 53

several and the specific modes by which notice is to be given
by the Collector of Taxes in Baltimore City,, before he
proceeds to collect the same by way of sale and execution.
He is required to deliver a copy of each tax bill to the per-
son by whom such taxes are to be paid or one of them, if
more than one, or at his, her or their last known residence,
or to his, her or their agent, or left upon the premises with
a notice thereon, that unless the taxes so due are paid within
thirty days thereafter, five per cent, of the gross amount
thereof will be added to the bill, and at the expiration of
thirty days, from the delivery of such bills, and notice, if the
same be not paid, five per cent, of the gross amount shall be
added to the bill as a penalty and collected in the same man-
ner as the bill itself. (Act of 1890, Chap. 205.) It is
quite clear that neither the requirements of the statute as
prescribed by the Code, Art. 81, sec. 49, nor by the Act of
1890, Chap. 205, as to preliminary notice were complied
with by the Collector. This being so it is fatal to the ap-
pellee's case. Benzinger v. Gies, 87 Md. 707.

Deposits in Savings Bank Invested in Ground Rents not
Taxable. This suit is brought to recover the tax assessed
by the Act of 1874, Chap. 483, sec. 85, which provides:
"The president or other officer of any savings bank, institu-
tion or corporation, which shall receive deposits and allow
interest thereon, shall furnish to the Comptroller on or be-
fore the first day of July of each year, the aggregate amount
of deposits in such corporation ; and shall pay to the Treas-
urer on or before the first of January succeeding, out: of

54 Maryland Tax Digest.

the interest due to the depositors, the State tax on said de-
posits." The question is whether the deposits of the ap-
pellee invested in ground rents, reserved under the leases of
99 years renewable forever, on property, which, by the law
of this State is assessed to, and the taxes thereon paid by,
the leasehold owner, are within the operation of this Vet.
The contention is that the tax thereby imposed is in effect a
tax on property held by the appellee in trust for its deposi-
tors, and to hold that the deposits invested in ground rents
are liable to the payment of this tax, would be to subject the
same property to double taxation, which is forbidden by the
State Constitution. * * *

In view of the decision in State v. Sterling, 20 Md. 502,
this contention is, we think, well founded. The precise ques-
tion arose in that case upon the construction of the Code,
Art. 81, sec. 95, which in terms is identical with the Act of
1871; and the Court being of opinion that the tax thereby
asesssed, was a tax upon the property of the institution,
decided : 1st, That the deposits invested in government secur-
ities, which by the Act of Congress, were exempt from
State taxation, were not within the operation of the law ;
and 2d, That the deposits invested in shares of stock or other
funds, upon which taxes were paid by the corporation, or
other persons, were not subject to the payment of the tax
imposed by the Act, because to hold otherwise would subject
the same property to double or unequal taxation. This de-
cision was made in 1867, and in passing the Act of 1874,
identical in terms with the Act thus construed by the Court,
we must presume the Legislature meant and understood it,

Maryland Tax Digest. 55

in the same sense in which the prior Act had been inter-
preted construing the Act of 1874. Then according to the
intention of the Legislature, as thus ascertained, we must
hold that the deposits of the appellee invested in ground
rents, the taxes on which have been paid by the leasehold
owner, are not within the operation of the Act of 1874. * * *

In so deciding, however, we are not to be understood a»
concurring with the Court in the construction placed upon
the Act in Sterling s Case. The tax imposed by that Act
on the deposits in savings banks, is not, in our opinion, a
tax on the property held by such banks in trust for the de-
posits. It is not a tax on the property nor upon the invest-
ments held by the bank ; nor is it a tax levied on each deposit
at a certain rate in proportion to its amount, but it is as-
sessed on the amount of all deposits in the bank ascertained
and fixed by the average sums which it has had in its hands,
during the six months preceding a specified day. It is noth-
ing more or less than a tax on the bank itself, upon its fran-
chise, and assessed in consideration of the privileges thus
conferred bv the State. * * *

Savings banks are not banks of discount, nor have they
any capital stock. The interest, therefore, due the depositors
is derived solely from the use or investments of deposits,,
and any tax imposed on such banks, must necessarily, to
some extent, diminish the interest to be received by deposi-
tors and may be said therefore to be paid out of the interest
due to them. So the tax imposed by the Act in Sterling's
Case, and the tax imposed by the Act of 1874, are not in our

56 Maryland Tax Digest.

opinion taxes on the property of savings banks held by them
in trust for depositors, but a tax on the franchises* which
such institutions enjoy through the favor of the State. * * *

We should hold that the deposits of the appellee invested
in ground rents are not exempt from the operation of the
Act of 1874, but for the fact that the Act was passed after
the decision in Sterling's Case, upon the construction of a
prior Act identical in terms with the Act of 1874. If by the
latter Act, the Legislature meant to tax the deposits, whether
invested in non-taxable securities, or ground rents on which
taxes were paid by the leasehold owner, this intention, in
view of the decision in Sterling's Case, ought to have been
expressed in clear and explicit terms. State v. Central Sav-
ings Bank, 67 Md. 290.

Distilled Spirits. There shall be levied upon all dis-
tilled spirits as personal property the same rate of taxa-
tion which is imposed by the laws of the State on other
property for State and County purposes. Code 1911, Art.
81, sec. 218.

The tax upon distilled spirits is not on the. property, but
upon the owner. Monticello Co. v. Baltimore, 90 Md. 423.

As to the duty of distillers, custodians and owners of
bonded warehouses to make storage reports to the State Tax
Commission, and the duty of the Commission to report val-
uations to the Appeal Tax Court and County Commis-
sioners, see Code 1911, Art. 81, sees. 219, 220 and 222.

Maryland Tax Digest. 57

Since the distiller is the agent of the State to collect such
taxes, the Tax Collector is not authorized to enforce pay-
ment thereof by distraint upon the property of the distiller
himself, but the remedy is by action at law against him upon
his statutory obligation to pay the taxes. Fozvble v. Kemp,
92 M'd. 630.

Any warehouseman, agent or custodian paying the tax
on distilled spirits shall have a lien upon the distilled spirits
covered by such tax. Code 1911, Art. 81, sec. 226.

The requirement that the distiller shall pay the tax for
the owner is not unlawful or unreasonable, the Legislature
having the power to require him as custodian to pay the
tax on the property in his possession, although owned by
unknown persons holding warehouse receipts ; he is made
the agent of the State to collect the tax and receives a lien
on the property to secure repayment. Carstairs v. Cochran,
95 Md. 488 ; Monticello Co. v. Baltimore, 90 Md. 419.

Domicile of Persons and Presence of Property in State
the Test of Taxability. When a person is not domiciled
within the State and property is not within its borders the
State can afford no protection to either and can give no
equivalent in return for taxes paid. Necessarily, all real
estate in the State is taxable wherever the owner may be,
but the law assumes that when a person leaves the State
his personal property goes with him. By the universal law
of all civilized nations property in action has its habitat at
the domicile of the owner. Appeal Tax Court v. Patterson,
50 Md. 354.

58 Maryland Tax Digest.

It is the rule of law that the possession of personal prop-
erty follows the owner to wherever he may be domiciled.
Latrobe v. Baltimore, 19 Md. 13.

The mere intention of a person to change his residence
will not exempt him from taxation, and, to make his in-
tention effective, he must actually remove from the county
or city before the annual levy is made. Stoddert v. Ward,
31 Md. 562.

Double Taxation. A double tax is not necessarily void.
The Declaration of Rights requires equality in taxation, and
in so far as a double tax destroys that equality, it is in-
valid, but not otherwise. Cooley on Taxation, 389. U. S.
Elec. Pozver & Light Co. v. State, 79 Md. 71.

Easements Enjoyed by the Consolidated Gas Company
in the Use of the Beds of Public Streets are Taxable —
Distinction Between Franchise and Easement.. The Con-
solidated Gas Company, of Baltimore, appealed from a
judgment of the City Court, in 1905, confirming an addi-
tional assessment by the Appeal Tax Court, of $6,00n,o00,
which sum comprised valuations of real estate, "services"
and gas mains, pipes and other construction located in, on,
under and over the public highways of Baltimore City, in
eluding the value of the easement enjoyed by the Company
in said highways. The contention of the appellant was that
there was no existing enactment which authorized the Ap-
peal Tax Court to tax the incorporeal right which the Com-

Maryland Tax Digest. 59

pany called a franchise, but which was claimed by the City
to be an easement. * * *

A franchise does not involve an interest in land — it is not
real estate, but a privilege which may be owned without the
acquisition of real property at all. The use of a franchise
may require the occupancy, or even the ownership, of land ;
but that circumstance does not make the franchise itself an
interest in land. Because land may be required in putting
a franchise into effective operation, it does not follow that
the franchise is land, or an interest in land. But an ease-
ment is quite a different thing. It is essentially and in-
herently an interest in land. It is an estate — a dominant
estate imposed upon a servient tenement. * * * * *

What then is the thing assessed and taxed in this case?
Is it the mere right to occupy the streets below the surface
with mains and pipes — which is the franchise — or is it the
easement acquired, through the franchise, by the actual
occupancy of the highways in that manner? * * *

Ostensibly it is the latter ; and the right to include the
value of that easement as an element in fixing an assess-
ment on the tangible property employed in availing of that
easement is no longer an open question in this State since
the decision in Appeal Tax Court v. Union R. R. Co., 50
Md. 274. In that case this Court hekl : "But few of the rail-
roads of the country have anything more than a mere ease-
ment in the ways occupied by their roads, and we are not

60 Maryland Tax Digest.

aware that it has ever been held that, because the Company
did not own the freehold estate in the bed of the road, noth-
ing but the mere superstructure thereon could be assessed
to the Company; the rule would seem to be clearly other-
wise, and that an easement enjoyed in the bed of a public
street may be taxed as real estate." We need not go beyond
Maryland to find cases to support the proposition that the
easement possessed by a corporation in a public thorough-
fare may be taxed as real estate. See Swan v. Kemp, 97
Md. 692 ; Dundalk &c. Ry. Co. v. Smith, 97 Md. .181 ; United
Ry. Co. v. Baltimore, 93 Md. 633 ; State v. N. C. Ry. Co.,
90 Md. 473 ; Smith v. School Commissioners, 81 Md. 516 ;
P. W. & B. R. R. Co. v. Appeal Tax Court, 50 Md. 409.

It follows that the property or estate which the Gas Com-
pany has in the highways of Baltimore is an easement which
may be properly assessed to the Company as real estate;
there was no error committed by the City Court in respect
to this question. Consolidated Gas Co. v. Baltimore, 101
Md. 545-550.

•

The Appeal Tax Court added together the dividend pay-
ing obligations and capital stock of the Company as repre-
senting the aggregate value of the corporation's property.
The value of the Company's real and personal property
was deducted from this total, the remainder being divided
by two, leaving $6,000,000, and this sum was fixed as the
valuation of the easement. Held by the Court that this
method of assessment was unlawful and capricious. Ibid.

Corporate bonds, secured by mortgage on lands in this

Maryland Tax Digest. 61

State and owned by residents, are, under Code, Art. 81,
sees. 2, 92 and 210, assessable to the owners, and there is
no statute authorizing the taxation of the same bonds as
being a part of the corporate assets. Ibid.

Though he may not be familiar with real estate values in
Baltimore, a person who has been a student of taxation,
and has made valuations of easements in other cities, and
who has studied the extent, size and mileage of the Con-
solidated Gas Company mains, and is informed as to the
earnings of the Company, is qualified to testify as an expert
as to the value of such easement. Consolidated Gas Co. v.
Baltimore, 105 Md. 56.

The value of an easement has no necessary relation to the
value of the land in the neighborhood. Ibid.

It is competent for the Baltimore City Court to summon
the Judges of the Appeal Tax Court to testify as to how
valuations were made. Ibid.

Electric Lighting Company not a "Manufacturing In-
dustry" Within the Meaning of the Statute. A bill in
equity was filed by the appellant to enjoin the City o'f Fred-
erick from collecting certain taxes alleged by them to be
due. In 1891, the Mayor and Aldermen of Frederick City,
under authority of an Act of the Legislature of 1882,
passed an ordinance providing "that the machinery and
manufacturing apparatus of all manufacturing industries
established within the corporate limits of Frederick within
two years next succeeding the date of the passage of this

62 Maryland Tax Digest.

ordinance and actually employed or used in the business of
manufacturing in Frederick City" shall be exempt from tax-
ation for five years. The bill alleges that the appellant
located its . manufacturing plant in Frederick City within
the prescribed time and has since then been engaged in the
manufacture of electricity. The appellees filed an answer
in which they allege that the plant of the appellant is not
included in the exemption, as it is not comprehended within
the terms "manufacturing industries." The controversy
therefore raised by the pleadings is whether an electric light
company is a manufacturing industry within the meaning
of that ordinance. *****

The purpose of the law is declared by the ordinance to
be ''for the encouragement of the growth and development
of manufactures and manufacturing industries in Frederick
City." The exemption embraces "the machinery and man-
ufacturing apparatus of all manufacturing industries" estab-
lished in the city within two years. Now, would the term
"manufacturing industries" strike the mind of the average
man when used in the above connection as including an elec-
tric light plant? In advertising a city or town as a desira-
ble place for manufactures, the fact that it was lighted with
electricity might be mentioned, just as good roads or streets,
pure water, healthy climate or other attractions might be,
but if a list of its manufactures were to include the electric
light plant amongst them, it would be looked upon as an
effort to enlarge the number beyond what the fact justified.
If a company proposed to manufacture armatures, lamps or
other electrical appliances, one would think of it as a man-

Maryland Tax Digest. 63

ufacturing industry, but not so of an ordinary electric plant
for furnishing electricity. *****

An electric light plant does not require the employment
of "much labor" — on the contrary, two or three men can
probably run the "machinery and manufacturing apparatus"
of a company that only runs at night and four or five could
run them day and night, and it would hardly be contended
that those terms would apply to and exempt the poles, wires,
lamps, etc., of an electric light company. Nor is there likely
to be any considerable increase in the employment of labor
connected with it. A manufacturing establishment, such as
we ordinarily think of in connection with that term, may
have a very small beginning and develop into a large con-
cern, and thereby benefit the community by the employment
of labor and distribution of large sums of money, but it is
not probable, if possible, that such results could ever follow
from an electric light plant. We do not, therefore, think
that an electric light company is within the object or con-
templation of the ordinance before us, and it is not the kind
of an enterprise meant by manufacturing industry, as there-
in used. Electric Light Company v. Frederick City, 8-1- Md.
599.

It would be an unwarranted construction of this ordinance
to say that the Mayor and Aldermen of Frederick intended
to include this company within what are ordinarily termed
"manufacturing companies" when the statute authorizing
the creation of such companies as the appellant excluded
them from the class by placing them in another class. We

64 Maryland Tax Digest.

think it clear that an electric light company is not included
within the terms "manufacturing industry" as used in this
ordinance. Ibid.

Equity Jurisdiction in Tax Cases. Equity will not in-
terfere by injunction to restrain the collection of a tax il-
legally assessed when the revenue statute provides an ade-
quate remedy for the party aggrieved by such assessment.
Gittings v. Baltimore, 95 Md. 419.

An equity court has jurisdiction to enjoin the Appeal
Tax Court of Baltimore from classifying property in the
Annex at the city rate when said property has not been so
improved to bring it under the city rate. Baltimore v. Gail,
106 Md. 684.

The Appeal Tax Court of Baltimore City has the power
to increase the assessment on land after a court of equity
has passed a decree directing the sale of the land and ap-
pointing a trustee to make same. Baltimore v. Gittings,
113 Md. 119.

Has a court of equity jurisdiction to restrain the levy
and collection of a tax attempted to be levied and collected
illegally ? To this interrogatory there can be but one answer
and that must be in the affirmative. Holland v. Baltimore,
11 Ml. 197; Joesting v. Baltimore, 97 Md. 594; also see
Baltimore City Charter, section 170.

When land or other property is under the control of a
court of equity, the ordinary statutory remedies for the

Maryland Tax Digest. 65

enforcement of taxes levied upon, or payable in respect of
such property, are suspended, and payment must be re-
ceived through the authority of the equity court. Blakistone
v. State, 117 Md. 244.

When property is in an equity court and taxes are due
thereon it is the duty of the Collector to apply to the Court
to authorize their payment. Prince George's Co. v. Clarke,
36 Md. 219.

Taxes due on the property of an insolvent estate are
payable out of a fund in the hands of the receivers. Marine
Bank v. Heller, 94 Md. 213.

In Joesting v. Baltimore, 97 Md. 590, it was distinctly
held that a' court of equity has jurisdiction to restrain the
levying of taxes which if levied would be unlawful. The
objection in this case is against the validity of the assess-
ment fixed in the Act itself, and a court of equity had full
power to entertain it, under the averrnents of the bill filed
in the case. Lcser v. Wagner, 120 Md. 674.

While individuals cannot sue to restrain alleged public
wrongs unless they have a special interest requiring pro-
tection, yet if the unauthorized act complained of would
result in an increase of taxation, those upon whom this
burden would fall constitute a special class with an interest
distinct from that of the general public, and are entitled
to seek relief by injunction. Weller v. Mueller, 120 Md.
638.

66 Maryland Tax Digest.

If the Act be invalid there can be no question as to the
power and duty of a court of equity, at the suit of a tax-
payer, to grant the relief prayed for in this bill because
the acts therein complained of would be ultra vires and
greatly injurious to the plaintiffs as taxpayers. The power
of a court of equity, under such circumstances, to interfere
at the suit of a taxpayer and arrest the unauthorized acts of
a municipal corporation, has been settled in a long line of
decisions of this Court. It was definitely settled in Balti-
more v. Gill, 31 Md. 375, and the principles there announced
have never been departed from in this State. Painter v.
Mattfeldt, 119 Md. 471.

Error as to Name in Tax Assessment. When property
owned by the Chesapeake Beach Ry. Co. is erroneously
assessed to the Chesapeake Beach Improvement Co., the
former Company, having knowledge of the assessment, is
not entitled to apply for an injunction to restrain the col-
lection of the tax on the property, but should apply to the
proper authorities to correct the error. Moffett v. Calvert
County, 97 Md. 266.

Errors of Tax Officials. In the execution of the revenue
laws, the constitution and the acts of the Assembly have
provided for the selection of certain public officers charged
with the duty of assessing and collecting the public taxes;
if any errors, omissions or irregularities occur in the dis-
charge of their duties, such errors may be corrected by the
means which the tax laws provide. Stoddert v. Ward, 31
Md. 563.

Maryland Tax Digest. 67

Escaped Property. The fact that property has escaped
assessment, or been omitted from the assessment books when
it was assessable under the law, being valued and placed in
the books after the levy has been made, cannot affect the
right of the State or municipality to collect the tax, nor will
it release the owner. Hopkins v. Van Wyck, 80 Md. 7.

Evidence in Tax Appeals. When the question is as to
the validity of the valuation of property for assessment
and taxation, the assessor who made or recommended the
assessment is entitled on direct examination to mention
the sales, leases and mortgages of other similar property
upon which he based his valuation, although he had been
informed of such sales, etc., by other persons, having him-
self no personal knowledge of them, or from an inspection
of the land records. Baltimore v. Hurlock, 113 Md. 674.

A plat made by the Appeal Tax Court showing the square
or block of ground in which the property in question is
located and the assessment of other lots of ground in that
block, and also the data as to sales, leases and mortgages of
property in the neighborhood, of which the assessors had
been informed, is admissible in evidence. Ibid.

Exemptions From Taxation. For all property exempt
from taxation in Maryland see Code 1911, Art. 81, sec. 4;
also Act of 1914, Chap. 467, exempting $500 worth of house-
hold furniture and effects ; also Act of 1914, Chap. 528, ex-
empting from State taxes manufacturing plants that have

68 Maryland Tax Digest.

been exempted by local legislation in the counties and in
Baltimore City.

Exemptions must be strictly construed. Appeal Tax
Court v. Gill, 50 Md. 377. Exemptions from taxation are
strictly construed and must be clearly made out. Anne
Arundel County v. Annapolis R. R. Co., 47 Md. 592.

The exemption of the lands and buildings of a cemetery
company does not extend to a fund invested in stocks.
State v. Baltimore Cemetery Co., 52 Md. 639 ; Appeal Tax
Court v. St. Peter's Academy, 50 Md. 345; Appeal Tax
Court v. Baltimore Cemetery Co. 50 Md. 435.

Property of the United States is not subject to state taxa-
tion. Van Brocklin v. Tennessee, 117 U. S. 151.

Personal property of officers and agents of the Federal
government residing within the limits of the Naval Academy
grounds is exempt from taxation. Chauvcnct v. Anne
Arundel 'County, 3 Md. 259.

1 Only the building or parts thereof which are reasonably
necessary for the corporate purposes of hospitals, charita-
ble or benevolent institutions, etc., are exempt from taxa-
tion. Any portion of the building Tlevoted to other pur-
poses and rented out, and stocks and other investments are
taxable. Baltimore v. Grand Lodge, 60 *M'd. 281 ; Appeal
Tax Court v. St. Peter's Academy, 50 Md. 352 ; United Rail-
ways Co. v. Baltimore, 93 Md. 634.

Maryland Tax Digest. t>9

The exemption from taxation granted by a company's
charter has no application to a paving tax. Baltimore v.
Greenmount Cemetery Co. 7 Md. 534.

Certain classes of property may be exempted from taxa-
tion within reasonable limits. There must, however, be
no arbitrary discrimination between properties of the same
kind. An exemption from taxation of a wharf owned by
a religious corporation held invalid because it created an
arbitrary discrimination and because it was in conflict with
Art. 3, sec 33, of the State Constitution. Baltimore v. Starr
Church, 106 Md. 281.

The fact that only a portion of a graveyard is occupied by
graves does not limit the exemption to the portion so occu-
pied. Appeal Tax Court v. St. Peter's Academy, 50 Md.
353.

The fact that the personal property of a domestic cor-
poration whose stock is subject to taxation in Maryland is
exempt under Code, Art. 81, sec. 4, does not effect the lia-
bility to taxation of the personal property of a foreign cor-
poration whose stock is taxable here. W ilk ens Co. v. Balti-
more, 103 *Md. 309.

Code, Art. 81, sec. 4, which exempts from taxation
the personal property of corporations whose capital stock
is taxed, precludes the taxation of the machinery of a manu-
facturing company as a part of its real estate. Anne Arun-
del County v. Baltimore Sugar Co., 99 Md. 485. See Code
1911, Art. 81, sec. 164.

70 Maryland Tax Digest.

Where a railroad exempted from taxation absorbs an-
other railroad not so exempted, the property of the latter
is still liable to taxation. B. C. & A. Ry. Co. v. Ocean City,
89 Md. 98. #A grant of exemption to a railroad company
does not pass to the purchaser of the property of said com-
pany under foreclosure. B. C. & A. Ry. Co. v. Wicomico
County, 103 Md. 277.

Foreign Corporations Subject to State Laws. Any cor-
poration not chartered by the laws of this State which shall
transact business therein shall be deemed to hold and ex-
ercise franchise within this State, and shall be liable to suit
in any of the Courts of this State on any dealings or trans-
actions therein. Code 1911, Art. 23, sec. 409.

The general rule is well settled that foreign corporations
which are permitted to come into a state for the prosecution
of their business must be held to have accepted the restric-
tions and duties imposed upon them by the laws of the State
they enter, and they can claim no other or greater rights or
privileges than these accorded the domestic corporations.
Centred Ga. R. R. Co. v. Eichberg, 107 Md. 372 ; Boggs v.
Inter-American, Etc. Co., 105 *M'd. 371 ; Harding v. Ameri-
can Glucose Co., 182 Ills. 551 ; Horn Silver Mining Co. v.
State of New York, 143 U. S. 315. In the last case cited
the Supreme Court observed: "It does not lie in any
foreign corporation to complain that it is subjected to the
same law with the domestic corporation." Hannis Distilling
Co. v. Baltimore, 114 Md. 684.

Maryland Tax Digest. 71

Foreign Owned Securities. Code, Art. 81, sees. 141,
et. seq., provides for the taxation of shares in corpora-
tions created by this State and directs that when such shares
are owned by non-residents they shall be valued to the
owners in the county or city in which the principal office of
the corporation is situated. The corporation is required
to pay the tax for the shareholders and is authorized to
charge them with the amount thereof. Plaintiff, non-resi-
dent, filed bill to restrain collection. Held that such shares
of stock are properly situated in this State and are liable
to taxation here although owned by a non-resident, the situs
of the stock for taxation being fixed by statute at the princi-
pal office of the corporation. Corry v. Baltimore, 96 Md.
310-322.

Notice of the assessment given to the corporation itself
is sufficient and a notice to each non-resident shareholder
is unnecessary, because in the taxation of its shares the
corporation is treated by the statute as representing the
shareholders. Ibid.

We hold, therefore, that the shares of stock held and
owned by the appellant, a non-resident of the State, in a
Maryland corporation, are liable to taxation, under the
statutes of this State, and that the tax is not in violation of
either the State or Federal Constituion. Ibid.

No stocks, bonds, mortgages, certificates or other evidences
of indebtedness of any company or corporation situate
within the limits of the City of Baltimore, which are owned
or held by persons residing without said limits, shall

72 Maryland Tax Digest.

be subject to taxation. Baltimore City Charter, p. 23. Heid
in Corry v. Baltimore, 96 Md. 310-322, that this does not
apply to non-residents of the State.

Money and credits belonging to a non-resident could be
permanently located within a state for purposes of taxation
when the same are invested and controlled by a resident
agent who has power to reinvest, or at his discretion, change
the form of the investment. Walker v. Jack, 88 Fed. Rep.
576.

Foreign Securities. This State lias the power to tax the
bonds and certificates of debt of other states and of cor-
porations created by them when held by residents of Mary-
land, although such bonds and certificates are exempted
from taxation by the state issuing them or creating the
corporation. Appeal Tax Court v. Gill, 50 Md. 396 : Appeal
Tax Court v. Patterson, 50 Md. 354.

Franchise — Definition of. A franchise is a special priv-
ilege conferred by the State on certain persons and which
does not belong to them of common right, and although the
franchise of a company may be considered in one sense
property, and valuable property, yet it is not property in
the meaning of that term as used in the Bill of Rights.
State v. P. W. & B. R. R. Co., 45 Md. 379.

Franchise Tax on Gross Receipts of a Guaranty Com-
pany not Payable on Receipts from Business Outside of
the State. This is a suit by the State against the United

Maryland Tax Digest. 73

States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, a Maryland corpora-
tion, to recover a State franchise tax of two per cent, of its
gross receipts claimed to be due by the appellee to the ap-
pellant for the year 1898. The only question presented v\
this case is whether the franchise tax of two per cent,
is to be levied under the statute upon the total gross re-
ceipts or earnings of the defendant company, from its entire
business or whether the tax is to be limited and imposed only
against the gross receipts or earnings of the business done
by the company within the State of Maryland and not out-
side of the limits of the State. * * *

It is well settled that in the construction of a statute the
intention of the Legislature is to prevail and when ascertained
it should be followed, although such a construction might
seem to be contrary to the letter of the statute. It is obvious
we think that a proper construction of the statute in this case
limits the franchise tax to the business done by the defen-
dant company within this State, and it was not the legisla-
tive intent that it should have an extra territorial effect.
This construction of the statute is approved by a number of
cases construing similar Acts limiting the tax upon the
gross receipts or earnings of similar companies. In the case
of Pacific Express Co. v. Seibert, 142 U. S. 389, Mr. Justice
Lamar, in construing an Act of the Legislature of "Missouri
imposing a tax upon the gross receipts of express com-
panies doing business in that State, said, that the statute
confines the tax which it creates to the intrastate business
and in no way relates to the interstate business of the com-
pany. State v. U. S. Fidelity Co. 93 Md. 315.

74 Maryland Tax Digest.

The Legislature could not have intended by the Act now
before us to lay a tax upon the business of the company
done by it without the State, but its object and purpose was
to confine and limit the tax of its business done within
the State. Ibid.

Franchises and Easements. The rights of a gas com-
pany to occupy with its mains and pipes the streets and al-
leys of a city is a franchise, but the actual occupation of
the streets in pursuance of the franchise is an easement in
land, and such easement may be assessed for taxation as
real estate owned by the company. Baltimore v. Consoli-
dated Gas Company, 101 Md. 541.

"Goods and Chattels Permanently Located" — The
Meaning Thereof. The firm of Baker Bros. & Co. was
taxed for 1892 in the sum of $80,000 on a stock of goods
in their store in Baltimore City, and horses to the value of
$750. The firm appealed to the City Court: (1) on the
ground that two of the partners lived in Baltimore County,
and the third party who lived in Baltimore had only a three-
tenths interest in the business, and that the firm could be
held liable for taxes only on that interest and (2) because
the goods were not "permanently located" in Baltimore.
The City Court decided that the City was entitled to re-
cover only the amount of taxes due for the horses and
for the three-tenths interest of Charles E. Baker, the partner
who lived in Baltimore. The appellees relied upon the
Constitution of Maryland, Art. 3, sec. 51, which provides

Maryland Tax Digest. 75

as follows : "The personal property of residents of this
State shall be subject to taxation in the county, or city,
where the resident bona fide resides for the greater part of
the year for which the tax may or shall be levied, and not
elsewhere, except chattels and goods permanently located,
which shall be taxed in the city or county where they are so
located." The appellees contended that the goods were not
"permanently located" in Baltimore, and that was the prin-
cipal question to be determined. * * * Such goods and
chattels as compose the stock in trade of the appellees are
not carried backward and forward between Baltimore
County and the City of Baltimore. As long as they are the
property of the appellees they are located in Baltimore
City, and they are as "permanently located" there as such
goods and chattels can be anywhere. They are not manu-
factured or purchased to be kept as long as they remain in
existence. Until they are sold they remain "permanently"
in Baltimore. The judgment below must be reversed. Hop-
kins v. Baker, 78 Md. 363.

If the position of the appellees is correct, it is possible
to have hundreds of thousands of dollars, probably millions,
of tangible personal property, goods and chattels, within
the City of Baltimore, having the benefit of its police and
fire protection from year to year, and yet not contribute
one cent to the police or fire departments. Merchants
transacting business in Cumberland, Hagerstown, Frede-
rick, Annapolis and other cities and towns could escape all
municipal taxes on their stock in trade by living beyond the

76 Maryland Tax Digest.

corporate limits, while those living within such limits must
pay the municipal as well as state and county taxes on their
stock in trade. Ibid.

It is proper to assess the property of a firm to the firm
instead of the individual partners thereof according to their
respective interests. As partnership assets are liable for
partnership debts, before they are for the debts of the in-
dividual members of the firm, it would be proper to levy the
taxes against the firm. Ibid.

Gross Receipts Tax on Corporations not a Double Tax.

The appellant is a company incorporated under the laws
of Maryland. It has a capital stock divided into shares and
owns real and personal property. This real property has
been duly assessed, and the valuation has been deducted
from the assessed value of the capital stock as required by
the Code, Art. 81, sec. 141. The State taxes upon the
company's real estate has been paid, and so also have the
State taxes on its shares of stock. In addition to these
taxes the State levied, under the Act of 1890, Chap. 559,
a further tax of one-half of one per cent, on the gross re-
ceipts of this and other like companies, and for a failure to
pay this latter tax the pending suit was instituted. The de-
fense relied on is that the gross receipts tax is a double
tax upon the same property, and therefore unauthorized and
illegal. It is claimed to be a double tax because it is in-
sisted that the value which the capital stock possesses after
the assessed value of the real estate has been deducted, is

Maryland Tax Digest. 77

such only as arises out of the ownership and operation of
the franchises of the company, and as a tax on the gross
receipts is a tax on the franchise, a tax on the capital stock,
whose value is the ownership and use of the company's
franchises is an additional tax on the same thing. * * *

But this argument is obviously fallacious. The Tax Com-
missioner is required by the statutes to deduct from the
aggregate value of all the shares of the capital stock of
banks and other corporations the assessed value of the real
estate owned by the company, and to divide the residuum
by the number of the shares of stock, and the quotient is
declared to be the taxable value of each share for state
purposes of taxation. Upon the valuation thus ascertained
the state tax is levied. But the tax is not a tax upon the
stock or upon the corporation, but upon the owners of the
shares of stock, though the officers of the corporation are
made the agents of the State for the collection of the State
tax. When the corporation pays the tax upon these shares
it pays not upon its own property, nor for the company, but
upon the property of each stockholder, by whom the com-
pany is entitled to be reimbursed. The tax is not levied
upon the corporation at all, but on the owner of the shares.
United States Electric Light and Power Co. v. State, 79 Md.
70. See also State v. R. R. Co. 40 Md. 51.

This tax and the gross receipts tax are not upon the
same individual, natural or artificial, in consequence of his
or its ownership of the same property, notwithstanding the

78 Maryland Tax Digest.

franchises of the corporation in some measure give value
to the shares of stock. Ibid.

The state tax on gross receipts of railroad companies
partly within this State is a franchise tax measured in
amount by the extent of the business of the companies, and
is not a tax on the goods transported or the tolls derived
therefrom. Such a tax is valid, and is not an interference
with or a regulation of interstate commerce, so as to conflict,
with the exclusive right of Congress to regulate commerce
among the several states. Cumberland & Penna. R. R. Co.
v. State, 92 Mi. 668.

The gross receipts tax is a tax upon the franchise of
railroad companies, measured by the extent of their busi-
ness, and not a tax upon property. State v. P. IV. & B.
R. R. Co., 45 Md. 379.

Ground Rent Investments by Savings Banks not Taxable.

The question is whether the deposits of the appellee in-
vested in ground rents, reserved under leases of 99 years
renewable forever, on property which by the law of this
State is assessed to, and the taxes thereon paid by the lease-
hold owner, are taxable under the Act of 1874, Chap. 483,
sec. 85. The contention is that the tax thereby imposed
is in effect a tax on property held by the appellee in trust
for its depositors, and to hold that the deposits invested
in ground rents are liable to the payment of this tax, would
be to subject the same property to double taxation which is
forbidden by the State Constitution. And in view of the

Maryland Tax Digest. : 79

decision in State v Sterling, 20 Md. 502, this contention is,
we think, well founded. State v. Central Savings Bank,
G7 Md. 292.

Guardians Responsible for Taxes. There would seem to
no room for doubt that the bond of a guardian is liable for
taxes levied on property in his hands, while he continues to
be such guardian. * * If it were not so, any guardian,
resident or non-resident, who is not financially responsible,
who held property that could not be reached by a tax col-
lector, could collude with his ward and thus let the property
escape taxation indefinitely. Baldwin v. State, 89 Md. 587.
See Code 1911, Art. 81, sec. 70.

Though the guardian has settled his final account and
delivered the property to his ward after the taxes were
levied that fact will not relieve his sureties from liability
therefor. Ibid.

Hearsay Evidence in Arriving at Valuations. Alfred D.
Bernard, one of the special assessors to the Appeal Tax
Court, testified that he passed, in the performance of his
duties as such assessor, upon the assessment from which
this appeal was taken. He testified upon his direct exami-
nation that the assessors personally examined the property,
and "were guided by their personal knowledge of sales and
rentals in the neighborhood; also by sales and rentals of
which they had information from owners and tenants ; also
by sales recorded in the special assessors' 'card index,' and
from auctioneers." Being asked to give the data relied on

80 Maryland IUx Digest.

by him, of which he was informed by others, an objection
to the question was sustained by the lower Court and ex-
ception taken. The ground of the appellee's objection to the
evidence sought to be introduced was that it was all hearsay
and therefore inadmissible in direct examination though per-
missible upon cross-examination. There appears to be con-
siderable diversity in the cases upon this question, and re-
spectable decisions are to be found both ways, but we think
upon principle the testimony thus excluded should have been
admitted and this view is sustained by the weight of
authority. Baltimore v. Harlock, 113 Md. 681. See Con-
solidated Gas Co. v. Baltimore, 105 Md. 43 ; Tidewater
Canal Co. v. Archer, 9 G & J. 317.

A skilful witness testifying as an expert may give the rea-
sons for his judgment. The basis may include the result of
inquiries made of others, or the fact of relevant sales known
to the witness. 17 Cyc. 109. Why should not the witness
be allowed to give its value, though he said his knowledge
was derived upon hearsay and was not practical knowledge?
The knowledge that the best expert possesses upon this sub-
ject is derived from hearsay. Hanover Water Co. v. Ash-
land Iron Co., 84 Pa. St. 279. The facts upon which
opinions of expert witnesses as to the value of property
proposed to be taken in condemnation proceedings, may be
stated by them either in chief or upon cross-examination.
Chicago & N. W . R. R. v. Chicago, 154 111. G57. (Quoted,
with approval, by the Court in Baltimore v. Hurlock, 113
Md. 683.)

Maryland Tax Digest. 81

Hospitals Under State Management not Assessable for
Expense of Opening Contiguous Public Road. By the Act

of 1876, Chap. 101, providing for the completion of Wilkens
avenue, a board of assessors was appointed to levy assess-
ments upon the owners of lands lying on or near Wilkens
avenue for the construction and completion thereof as in
their judgment may be benefited by the construction and
completion of the same. The sum of $1,550 was assessed
against the Maryland Hospital for the Insane on land owned
by the hospital which was contiguous to Wilkens avenue.
The assessment being ratified by the Circuit Court for Balti-
more County an appeal was taken to this Court. *****

If the land to be affected by the assessment is. the property
of the State used in carrying out one of the objects or func-
tions of the State Government, we do not think it liable to
the assessment; unless the power so to subject it has been
clearly conferred in the said Act of 1876, Chap. 101, or it
has been made so liable from the rights and powers con-
ferred on the defendant, or the nature of its control over
the property, under the Acts of 1876, Chap. 351, and 1878,
Chap. 341. The declarations contained in the Acts of 1878
seem to clearly imply the proprietorship of the State in the
hospital property; of the hospital being an established insti-
tution for carrying on one of the most needed charities of
the State ; and that the said board of managers is but a public
agency of the State, for the administration of this particular
charity, leave no room to doubt what is the legislative un-
derstanding of the State's relation to the property, and to the
means employed to accomplish its purpose. *****

82 Maryland Tax Digest.

It seems manifest that the "managers" are what the term
imports — managers simply of the property, with no power
to pledge, alienate or encumber it; charged with the duty
of its protection and faithful operation for and on behalf
of the State, but invested with no absolute ownership of
the property. It was not the purpose of the Act of 1876 to
levy an assessment against the property of the State and
as the Maryland Hospital for the Insane is palpably the
property of the State, the assessment in this case is un-
authorized and void. Baltimore County v. Maryland Hos-
pital for the Insane, 62 Md. 133.

Increase of Assessment of Land Decreed to be Sold
in Equity. Plaintiff owned for his natural life a tract of
land known as "Ashburton," a farm in Baltimore County
that had become a part of the Annex. Under a decree of
a court of equity he was appointed trustee to dispose of the
farm. A notice was served on him personally, not as trus-
tee, that it was the purpose of the Appeal Tax Court to
revise the assessment, whereupon he applied for an injunc-
tion against the Appeal Tax Court. By the Act of 1908,
Chap. 167, it is provided that any person aggrieved because
of an assessment or classification made by the Appeal Tax
Court may within thirty days appeal to the Baltimore City
Court to review such assessment or classification, and that
the proceedings of the Appeal Tax Court shall not be de-
clared void unless there was an absence of due notice. Al-
though the notice in this case was addressed individually
to the appellee, and not as trustee, nevertheless by it he was

Maryland Tax Digest. 83

informed of the contemplated increased assessment, and in
our opinion he was the proper person to whom the notice
should have been addressed, nor was the permission of the
equity court needed by the Appeal Tax Court to authorize
the increase of assessment. Appellee was not entitled to
apply to a court of equity, his remedy being by the City
Court. Baltimore v. Gittings, 113 Md. 119. See also Own-
ers' Realty Co. v. Baltimore, 112 Md. 477.

Injunctions Against Illegal Assessments not Allowed
When There is Another Remedy. Section 170 of the Bal-
timore City Charter, embraces illegal assessments as a cause
of appeal to the City Court. "A pretended assessment,"
such as the bill in this case charges, is an illegal assessment,
and the City Court has the same power under this section
to strike down a pretended or illegal assessment and to re-
store the actual or true assessment that it has to reduce or
abate an erroneous or inequal assessment. The plain object
of this section of the charter was to provide a prompt
remedy for the correction of all errors in the assessment of
taxes in the City of Baltimore, and in construing a similar
position in County Commrs. of Allegany Co. v. Union Min-
ing Co., 61 Md. 545, this Court said that even where the tax
itself is illegal, or the tribunal composing it has exceeded its
powers the remedy by injunction cannot even then be in-
voked if an appellate tribunal has been created with power
to remedy the wrong. * * Where an appeal is given to the
parties to be affected by the proceedings, any irregularities
therein are open upon appeal, and the appellate tribunal is

'84 Maryland Tax Digest.

the proper one to review and correct them. Gittings v. Bal-
timore, 95 Md. 425.

Section 164A, of the Baltimore City Charter, gives the
Appeal Tax Court power at any time to revise all valuations
and provides a prescribed notice to all property owners
whose assessments are to be increased. If, therefore, the
prescribed notice of such purpose was not in fact given, such
alteration and increase was illegal, and if the failure to give
such notice had been alleged in the bill of complaint it cannot
be questioned that the injunction should have been granted.
* * The failure to give the prescribed notice is the only fact
that would have given jurisdiction to the Circuit Court.
Ibid.

Insolvent Corporations — Taxes Due a Lien on Assets.
Assets of an insolvent corporation in the hands of a receiver
are liable for taxes due. The taxes are to be paid regard-
less of the fact as to whether or not any dividends are paya-
ble to the owners of the shares. The taxes so due are a
prior lien on the assets of the corporation. American Cas-
ualty Insurance Co.'s Case, 82 Md. 535.

Interest Bearing Deposits Taxable. Deposits in com-
mercial banks, trust companies and other financial institu-
tions (not savings banks) are assessed at the thirty-cent rate
by the County Commissioners of Maryland and the Appeal
Tax Court of Baltimore City, the bank books of the de-
positors being regarded as "evidences of debt," as provided
in the Code 1911, Art. 81, sec. 214. (Note.— In October,

Maryland Tax Digest. 85

1911, Judge Brashears, Associate Judge of the Circuit Court
for Carroll County, held that interest bearing deposits in
banks cannot be legally taxed in Maryland, but the case
was not taken to the Court of Appeals.)

Interest on Tax Bills. Taxes on both real and personal
property "after they become in arrears shall bear interest
at the rate of 6 per centum per annum." Baltimore City
Charter, see. 40 ; Skinner Dry Dock Co. v. Baltimore, 96
Md. 37.

We think no interest should be allowed on the claims for
taxes in this case. While not precisely analogous, the case
of Hutchinson v. Liverpool & Lond. & Gl. Ins. Co., 153
Mass. 143, supports this conclusion. It is not easy, if in-
deed it be possible, to place upon a consistent basis many of
the decisions in which interest has been allowed or dis-
allowed. The failure to pay, as far as we can see, has been
the result of the company's insolvency, and no penalty or
damages in the way of interest ought to be added to the sums
actually due. American Casualty Company's Case, 82 Md.

555.

By the Act of 1890, the taxes are due and payable on
July 1st in each year, and it is provided that if not paid
within thirty days thereafter the companies shall pay the ad-
ditional sum of five per cent, as a penalty. The Legislature
had the right to impose the penalty, and in a suit to recover
such taxes, interest is chargeable on the amount of the tax
from August 1st in eacfy year, but no interest is chargeable

S6 Maryland Tax Digest.

on the five per cent, penalty. Cumberland & Penna R. R.
Co. v. State, 92 Md. 669.

Invalidity of Statute Exempting From, Taxation a
Wharf Owned by a Church. The Starr Methodist Church
is the owner of a wharf devised to it by Wesley Starr. The
church paid taxes on the wharf until 1904, when the Legis-
lature passed an Act exempting the wharf from taxation.
Notwithstanding this Act the Appeal Tax Court retained
the property in its assessment books, and the City Collector
advertised it for sale for non-payment of taxes. The Cir-
cuit Court granted a permanent injunction against the
collection of the tax and the Appeal Tax Court appealed to
this Court. * * *

It is apparent that the constitutionality vel non of the
Act of 1904 lies at the root of this contention. In support
of the appellant's position reference is made to the Declara-
tion of Rights, Art. 15, which provides that "every per-
son in the State, or person holding property therein, ought
to contribute his proportion of public taxes, according to his
actual worth in real and personal property." * * The ex-
emption in this case does not apply to a species or class of
property but to one piece of property only, leaving all other
property of the same class or species subject to taxation;
and for no other reason except the purely arbitrary one of a

benefit or personal favor to the appellee and no one else.
* * *

It is simply an arbitrary selection of the property of the
appellee, and the conferring of a favor upon it, which is

Maryland Tax Digest. 87

denied all other owners of similar property. If this can be
done in one case it can be done in another, and it would then
be in the power of the Legislature to wilfully discriminate
between its citizens, taxing some on account of their prop-
erty, and at the same time exempting others similarly sit-
uated, and all the while acting under no reasonable, just or
proper rule whatever, but solely at the dictation of its own
caprice. Even an unreasonable classification is prohibited
by the Fourteenth Amendment. * * We think (furthermore)
that the Act exempting this property is void because it con-
travenes Art. 3, sec. 33, of the State Constitution in that it
relates to the exemption from taxation of the property of a
religious body, and this is a subject for which provision
has already been made by an existing general law, namely,
Code, Art. 81, sec. 4. Baltimore v. Starr Church, 106 Md.
281.

Invalidity of Statute Giving to County Where Corpora-
tion was Created the Tax on Shares Owned by Non-
Residents. The Act of 1900, Chap. 579, provided that the
incorporated companies of Allegany County, whether divi-
dend paying or not, shall pay the State and County taxes
levied upon the assessed value of their capital stock, held by
stockholders, resident or non-resident of Allegany County,
but the holders of said stock shall not be liable upon the
stocks held by them. * * This Act, though professing to
be a local law for Allegany County, is not confined in its
operations to the limits of that county. It operates in every
county in the State in which there is resident any stock-

8S . Maryland Tax Digest.

holder of an Allegany County corporation, and withdraws
from every such county the tax upon the shares of stock
held by residents of such county, which under the existing
general provision would go into the treasury of every such
county. IJeld to be invalid because it is in violation of the
Constitution, Art. 3, sec. 51, which provides that personal
property of residents shall be taxable in the counties in
which they reside; also that it violates sec. 33 of said
Article which provides that no special law shall be passed by
the General Assembly for any case which is covered by a
general law. Baltimore v. Allegany County. 99 Md. 1.

The policy as to personal property of residents of the
State is fixed by Art. 3 of the Constitution. It is founded on
Art. 15 of the Declaration of Rights which requires every
person in the State to contribute his proportion of public
taxes for the support of the government according to his
actual worth in real and personal property. Ibid.

No Maryland case has been cited, and we know of none,
either deciding or intimating that shares of stock held by
a resident of the State can be taxed elsewhere than at the
bona fide residence of the owner. Ibid.

Itemizing Stocks of Goods not Necessary. It is not

necessary to itemize the stock in trade when it is assessed.
The assessors examine the stock, the goods and chattels,
and fix their value for taxation just as they do the furni-
ture or other tangible property at the respective residences
of the appellees. Hopkins v. Baker, 78 Md. 375.

Maryland Tax Digest. 89

Jurisdiction of Circuit Courts — No Power to Enjoin State
Officials Beyond Their Circuits. By Sec. 178, Chap. 120,
and by Sec. 199, Chap. 140, of the Acts of Assembly of 1896,
provision is made for the valuation and assessment of the
rolling stock of railway companies for purposes of county
and municipal taxation. In substance these sections enact
that the situs of such rolling stock shall be taken and con-
sidered to be in the assessment district in which the com-
pany's principal place of business is located, that the total
valuation shall be made there and that for the purposes
of county and municipal taxation this total valuation shall
be divided amongst the counties and the City of Baltimore
in proportion to the mileage of road-bed located in the coun-
ties and in the city respectively. Under the provisions of
these Acts the rolling stock owned by the Philadelphia, Wil-
mington & Baltimore Railroad Company was valued and
assesssed in Baltimore City; the total valuation thereof
was returned by the Board of Control and Review to the
State Tax Commissioner, who at once made an apportion-
ment and division of the whole between the city and the
several counties of this State through which the railroad is
located, and ascertained upon the mileage basis, that the
amount chargeable to the company for county taxation in
Harford County was $550,202.81, which amount he forth-
with certified to the County Commissioners of that county.
From this apportionment the railroad company took an
appeal to the State Board. Pending that appeal the County
Commissioners of Harford County filed in the Circuit Court
the bill of complaint to be found in the record now before us.

90 Maryland Tax Digest.

This bill alleges that the Comptroller and Treasurer is about
to interfere with said apportionment and to largely reduce
the amount thereof under pretence of reviewing the same
as a board of appeal, which action, it is charged, is without
any legal authority or warrant of law. Upon this bill an
ex parte order was passed, directing the injunction to issue
as prayed. The defendants demurred to the jurisdiction of
the Court, and appealed to this Court from the order grant-
ing the injunction. * * *

It is nowhere averred in the bill that either of the de-
fendants is a resident of Harford County, and apart from all
other questions in the case, it is insisted that, in the absence
of any appropriate allegation showing that the defendants
were, or that one of them was, within the Court's jurisdic-
tion or what the subject-matter of the proceeding was, the
Court below possessed no power to order the injunction to
be issued. Not only does the bill fail to aver that the de-
fendants were within the limits of the Court's jurisdiction,
but docket entries affirmatively show that they were not,
for no writ was directed to them in Harford County, but
three were sent to other circuits in the State. It cannot be
contended that the Circuit Court for Harford County has
authority to restrain by injunction the fiscal officers of the
State who do not reside or are not found within that county,
from doing some act, beyond the limits of the county, re-
specting property not actually situated in the county ; with-
out conceding to every other Circuit Court in the State a
like and equal power. And if each Circuit Court possess,
under these conditions, the power to issue an injunction to

Maryland Tax Digest. 91

operate beyond the territory over which its jurisdiction ex-
tends and against persons not amenable to its ordinary pro-
cess and to inhibit the doing of an act not attempted or
intended to be done within the county over which the Court's
jurisdiction does reach, then that power is not to be found
either in the constitution or the statutes of the State. In the
very nature of things no such jurisdiction can be maintained.
To uphold it in this instance would be to admit its existence
in any other court of equity in Maryland, and results cer-
tainly might be, that the State's officers would be proceeded
against, not where they reside or even where they transact
the public business, but wherever a plaintiff who sought to
subject their official functions to a court of equity, might
happen to live. This would lead to endless confusion, if it
would not practically cripple the efficiency of the officers
themselves; and, besides, it would materially amplify the
authority conferred by statutes upon the courts. The State
Treasurer and the State Comptroller were directly author-
ized by legislative enactment to examine into the apportion-
ment made by the State Tax Commissioner and to readjust
the same, and it follows that the Circuit Court of Harford
County had no power to grant the injunction. Graham v.
Harford County, 87 Md. 323.

Land Under Water. The title to land under the water is
in the State, and hence is not subject to taxation. Western
Md. R. R. Co. v. Baltimore, 106 Md. 567.

Although the riparian owner has the right to reclaim the
land to make improvements into the water in front of his

92 Maryland Tax Digest.

original land, yet until he does so the title to the land under
the water is in the State. Ibid.

Landed Property. The term "landed property" as used
in the annexation Act of 1888, sec. 19, shall be construed
to mean real estate, whether in fee simple or leasehold, and
whether improved or unimproved. Code 1911, Art. 4, sec. 4.

"Levy" — Meaning of . The word "levy" has .different
meanings according to the object to which it is applied. As
applied to taxes it sometimes means to raise and exact by
authority of government or to determine by vote the amount
of tax to be raised. It is in this sense that towns and cities
levy taxes ; in other cases it is used with reference to the
mere ministerial or executive act of entering them on the
tax books and collecting them. 5 IVords and Phrases, p.
4101 (quoted in Union Trust Co. v. State, 116 Md. 373.)

The act of the Assembly fixing the amount to be imposed
per hundred dollars is a legislative levy of the tax, but that
levy is only completed when it is entered on the books of the
State Comptroller. Union Trust Co. v. State, 11G Md. 373.

Levy of Taxes by De Facto Officers of a Town, Though
not Sworn in, Valid and Binding. This is a bill to restrain
the appellee from enforcing the payment of taxes levied by
them on the property of the appellant. It is admitted, that
the appellees were duly elected "the Burgess and Commis-
sioners of Hancock," — that they qualified as such by taking
the oath of office prescribed by the charter, and entered upon

Maryland Tax Digest. 93

the discharge of the duties of their office. But it is argued
that the assessment of taxes made by them is invalid, be-
cause they have not taken the oath of allegiance required by
the Constitution of the State, Art. 1, sec. (>. * * *

Admitting for the purposes of this case, that it was neces-
sary for them to take the oath prescribed by the Constitu-
tion, to constitute them officers de jure, it is conceded they
entered upon and have continued to discharge the duties of
their office; and no principle is better settled than that the
acts of officers de facto in regard to public matters affecting
the public interests, are to be regarded as valid and binding ;
as much so as if the same acts had been performed in the
same manner, by an officer de jure. State v. Carroll, 38
Conn. 449 ; Cooley on Taxation, 189. * * *

It has been questioned whether this principle applies to
the acts of officers entrusted with the assessment and levy
of taxes, but as taxes are levied for the support of the gov-
ernment, the reasons of public policy on which the principle
is founded, apply with even greater force in regard to the
acts of officers whose duty it is to levy and collect such
taxes. And such is the general current of decisions in this
country. 1 Dillon on Mun. Corp., 276 ; Blackwell on Tax
Titles, sec. 98, and cases cited. Being officers de facto, the
public and official acts of the appellees as Burgess and Com-
missioners of Hancock are valid and binding. * * *

It is argued that no assessment was in fact made by the
appellees. In authorizing the town authorities to assess and
levy taxes, the charter is silent as to the mode and manner

94 Maryland Tax Digest.

in which the assessment is to be made. Instead of ap-
pointing persons to assess the property of persons subject to
taxation, the appellees adopted the assessment made for
State and county purposes, making such changes as might
be necessary arising from change of ownership, etc. It is
not suggested that this assessment is unfair, unequal, or in
any manner oppressive. Notice was given by the appellees
of the assessment thus made and adopted by them, and an
opportunity afforded to have the same corrected and re-
adjusted should such be necessary. There is nothing in the
charter under which the appellees were elected, nor is there
any general principle of law which forbids them from
adopting the assessment made for State and county pur-
poses, as the basis of the levy to be made by them, Koontz v.
Hancock, 64 Md. 134.

License Taxes. The right to impose a license fee for
conducting a particular business is vested in the Legislature
by the Constitution. The license fee is a tax on a business,
not on property. State v. Applegarth, 81 Md. 293.

Liens For Taxes. All State and county or municipal
taxes shall be liens on the real estate of the party indebted
from the time the same are levied. Code 1911, Art. 81,
sec. 49.

Taxes are not a lien per se; hence they are not a lien on
personal property. Parlett v. Dugan, 85 Md. 409; Degner
v. Baltimore, 74 M'd. 146.

Maryland Tax Digest. 95

Limitations Against Taxes Must be Pleaded. Though it
is provided in the Code, Art. 81, sec. 83, that taxes
must be collected within four years from the time they are
levied, the Statute of Limitation will not avail unless it is
plead by the person from whom the taxes are demanded.
Unless plead, the lien on the property still exists, and the
collector may proceed to sell it. Baden v. Perkins, 77 Md.
465.

List of Stockholders Must be Furnished by Corpora-
tions to County and City Authorities. The Fireman's In-
surance Company of Baltimore refused to furnish to the
Appeal Tax Court of Baltimore its list of stockholders as
required by the express terms of the Code. The company
contended that its stock ought to be assessed at its par value,
as fixed by its charter, and that the tax, since the Act of
1861-1862, Chap. 251, was payable to the city on the entire
capital and was properly payable by the company and not
by the respective shareholders. Upon application of the
Appeal Tax Court the Superior Court of Baltimore City
issued a writ of mandamus ordering the company to furnish
a list of its stockholders. * * * *

We concur in the opinion of the Superior Court in this
case, and think the mandamus was properly ordered. The
appellant is a joint stock corporation in the City of Balti-
more, subject to the provisions of the 97th Section, 81st
Article, of the Code; and was bound, by the express terms
of that section to furnish to the Appeal Tax Court the
list of stockholders with their places of residence, and the

90 Maryland Tax Digest.

amount of stock held by each, and having failed or refused
to do so, the appropriate remedy to enforce a compliance with
the obligation so imposed, was by the writ of mandamus.
The position of the appellant that the corporation, as an
entity, and not the shareholders, is the owner of its capital
stock is more ingenious than sound. The purpose of the law
is that every owner of property, whether it be shares of
stock or other property, shall pay taxes thereon at its actual
cash value. The whole Court agree in the opinion that the
shares of stock are liable to be assessed at their cash value
at the time of the assessment. Fireman's Insurance Co. v.
Baltimore, 23 Md. 309.

The necessity of furnishing a list might be obviated by
the corporation agreeing with the Appeal Tax Court to pay
an ascertained amount of money as a tax upon the stock
liable to city taxation, in lieu of an assessment upon the in-
dividual shares, thus saving the city the necessity of resort-
ing to the individual stockholders. The Act of 1864, Chap.
391, in express words, authorizes such agreements to be
made by joint stock corporations. Ibid.

Local Assessment of Corporate Stocks and Bonds.

The stock of the American Coal Company, with its princi-
pal office in Allegany County, is divided into 58,800 shares,
one hundred of which is owned in Allegany County and the
remainder by persons in other states. The Company owned
valuable real estate in Allegany County and in New Jersey,
and the State Tax Commissioner, as required by law, de-

Maryland Tax Digkst. 1)7

ducted the value of this real estate from the total value of
the whole number of shares of capital stock, thus determin-
ing the value of each share of stock and of the whole num-
ber of shares. The real estate owned in New Jersey con-
tributed very largely to the value of the stock as ascer-
tained by the State Tax Commissioner. The Company paid
the taxes for 1880 on its real estate owned in Allegany
County, but refused to pay the tax bill for the whole num-
ber of shares as levied by the County Commissioners, and
suit was brought for recovery of these taxes. The appel-
lants contended that the Company should not have been
charged with the whole number of shares, and particularly
that the State Tax Commissioner had no authority to in-
clude the New Jersey real estate in his valuation. * * * *

It was clearly the purpose of the Code, Art. 81,
sec. 151, to give to the counties and to Baltimore City the
power to assess all the property of a corporation that has
either a constructive or actual situs within their bounds^
In Baltimore v. R. R. Co., 57 Md. 31, it was declared to be
the purpose of the statute that the State Tax Commissioner
should certify as to the value and number of shares owned
by both residents and non-residents. There was no error on
the part of the State Tax Commissioner in including the
New Jersey real estate in his valuation. * * *

Under the statute the taxes were properly levied upon the
property of the corporation without reference to the as-
sessment and levy upon the shares of the individual share

98 Maryland Tax Digest.

owners, the corporation being required to pay the taxes on
the shares, and to charge the same to the account of the
respective share owners. This duty of the corporation may
be enforced by law. American Coal Co. v. Allegany County,
59 Md. 192-197.

Machinery of Corporations Not Assessable as Real
Estate* The real estate owned by a corporation is assessed
by the tax authorities of the county in which it is located.
It is the duty of the County Commissioners to send a copy
of the assessment to the State Tax Commissioner. Under
the Code, Art. 81, sec. 141, the value of all the shares of a
corporation, as derived from all of its property, is fixed by
the State Tax Commissioner and from this total he extracts
the assessment so placed on its real estate. The residuum
constitutes the valuation of the shares subject to taxation in
the municipality where the owners reside. The pergonal
property of a corporation is not separately assessed. Under
the provision thus set forth the State Tax Commissioner
must value the machinery of a manufacturing corporation
for taxation as constituting a part of the aggregate value of
the shares of stock and the County Commissioners cannot
value the machinery as a part of the real estate. When
County Commissioners thus improperly assess machinery
as a part of the real estate of a corporation a writ of
mandamus is the proper remedy for aggrieved taxpayers.
Anne Arundel County v. Sugar Refining Company, 99 Md.
481.

Maryland Tax Digest. 99

Market Value of Shares of Stock and the Criterion for
Their Assessment. The Tax Commissioner in assessing the
capital stock of the Montgomery County National Bank
proposes to disregard the earning capacity of said shares of
stock of more than 17^2 per cent, and the reported sales
of said shares at $250 to $300 per share, and take the book
value of $218,129.57 and arbitrarily deduct one-fourth of
said book value, or $54,532.39, thus reducing the gross value
per share to $163.59. * * * It is to be observed that sec.
159 of Art. 81 of the Code, which directs the Commissioner
to make the assessment, contains no specific directions as to
the manner in which the value of the shares is to be ascer-
tained. * * * But as sec. 15 of the Bill of Rights requires
taxation to be according to the actual worth of the property
it is the duty of the Commissioner to pursue a method which
results in the ascertainment of the actual value of the shares
assessed by him. The value of an article is ordinarily what
it will bring at a fair sale in the market. It may be safely
said as a general rule that the market price of the shares of
stock of the character referred to in sec. 159 is not only a
fair index of their value but is the best one obtainable.
That is certainly true of stocks which are currently bought,
sold and quoted on the stock exchanges and other centres
of trade in securities. Schley v. Montgomery County, 106
Md. 410.

The method, pursued by the Tax Commissioner, of ascer-
taining what is commonly known as the book value of bank
and trust company shares by adding the capital stock, sur-
plus and undivided profits of the corporation and dividing

100 Maryland Tax Digest.

the total thus obtained by the number of shares into which
its capital is divided is neither a true guide to the value of
the shares of a particular corporation nor one that operates
equally when applied to the shares of a number of different
corporations. Ibid.

The Commissioner in making his assessments should
have especial regard to the market price of those shares.
Ibid.

Mode of Assessment Directed by Municipal Charter.

The Charter of Salisbury exempted private securities and
judgments from municipal taxation. In 189(> the Legislature
passed a general assessment law which provided a plan for
the levying of county and municipal taxes. Held that this
act did not repeal the provisions of the Salisbury charter
with reference to the method of assessment, nor the exemp-
tion from taxation of private securities and judgments.
Salisbury v. lackson, 89 Md. 518.

Mortgage Bonds. Under the Code, Art. 81, sees. 2,
94 and 214, mortgage bonds secured by property in this
State and owned by residents of Maryland, are taxable to
the owners thereof and not to the corporation itself. Con-
solidated Gas Co. v. Baltimore, 105 "M'd. 50; Consolidated
Gas Co. v. Baltimore, 101 Md. 555.

Mortgaged Property Assessable to the Mortgagor. Real
estate should, in all circumstances, be assessed at its actual
worth, and mortgaged property should be assessed to the

1> > » > ) »)

. > 11.1. >1, ,, ,

Maryland Tax Digest. 101

mortgagor, without reference to mortgage liens. This ques-
tion has been settled in this State ever since the decision
of the Tax Cases, 12 G. & J. 146, in 1841. Allen v. Harford
County, 74 Md. 294.

Mortgages to Secure Corporation Bonds. Mortgages
by a railroad company executed in favor of a trustee to
secure bonds sold to investors are not taxable under the
Act of 1896, Chap. 120. Musgrove v. B. & O. R. R. Co.,
Ill Md. 629.

Municipal Taxation of Suburban Land. The Act of

1884, Chap. 58, provided a new system of government for
Hagerstown, enlarging the boundaries of the city so as to
include what was known as "Valentine's Addition." By the
terms of the Act, the annexed land was not to become sub-
ject to municipal taxes until streets had been opened and
graded through it, and then could only be assessed for a
distance of 240 feet from the line of a street. "Valentine's
Addition" had been mapped out in blocks, with designated
streets, and the map recorded. But none of the streets had
been accepted by the municipality, and the adoption of the
new charter did not operate as an acceptance. The nearest
city street to this tract of land is Mechanic street, and the
facts make it clear that the property proposed to be taxed
is not within 240 feet of that thoroughfare, nor within that
distance of any turnpike or public road. The acceptance
of the new charter by the City of Hagerstown did not
operate as an acceptance of the streets that had been laid

* *

102 Maryland Tax Digest.

out in this added territory. Although the dedication of these
streets might have been complete, as has been urged by the
appellee, but to make them public streets within the meaning
of the charter there must be an acceptance of the dedication
according to law. Valentine v. Hagerstown, 86 Md. 486.

Municipalities Entitled to a Share of State Tax on
Securities. A municipal corporation within a county is
entitled to a share of the thirty (now fifteen) cents levied
on owners of bonds residing in such city, and as the Legisla-
ture failed to name the proportions we must assume that
it was intended to be equally divided between the city and
county. Frederick County v. Frederick City, 88 Md. 662.

Municipality Has no Authority to Enter Into a Contract
to Exempt a Manufacturer for Fifty Years. In 1889 a
contract was made between the City of Havre de Grace
and John Faust & Son, the latter of whom agreed to move
their business of manufacturing shoes to Havre de Grace
and maintain in that place a shoe factory of certain dimen-
sions, within a prescribed time in consideration of the gift to
them of certain land and money toward the erection of
the factory, and the exemption of the factory when erected
with its stock, plant and buildings, from city taxation for
fifty years. Faust & Son agreed to continuously operate the
factory to its full capacity, and also agreed to give a bond
of $25,000 to guarantee performance of its contract, in
consideration thereof the municipality agreeing to pay to
Faust & Son, the sum of $25,000, to be used in the construc-
tion of the building, to convey a designated lot of ground

Maryland Tax Digest. 103

for the factory building, and to exempt the factory from
taxation for fifty years. The factory was erected and con-
tinuously operated for ten years, then the shoe company
made an assignment for the benefit of its creditors, in 1896,
to A. P. McCombs and C. H. Faust, who filed a bill in the
Circuit Court for Harford County for their administration
of the trust under its supervision. The shoe factory was
subsequently sold to an individual, who in turn sold it to the
appellant corporation. The appellant alleged that the City
of Havre de Grace had levied taxes upon the shoe factory
and was about to sell it for their non-payment and prayed
for an injunction, which was granted. The city admitted that
it has attempted to make the alleged contract with Faust &
Son, but denying its power to do so, also denying that the
contract had been complied with by them or their assigns
in that the shoe factory had not been continuously operated
to its full capacity for ten years. The Circuit Court dis-
solved the preliminary injunction and dismissed the bill. * * *

The Circuit Court in our opinion correctly disposed of the
case, as the evidence in the record does not show the appel-
lant to be entitled to the relief prayed for in the bill. At the
time of making the contract in 1889, the only authority pos-
sessed by the city to exempt property from taxation was
that conferred upon it by the local Act of 1880, which
authorized it to abate by general ordinance any or all taxes
levied by its authority for corporate uses upon machinery,
etc., owned by any individual or corporation in the city and
"actually employed and used in the business of manufactur-
ing in said city" or upon the raw material used, or the

104 Maryland Tax Digest.

produce manufactured by such individuals or corporations.
That Act evidently conferred no power upon the city to
make the Faust contract. Power Co. v. Havre de Grace,
102 Md. 37. j

It was therefore beyond the power of the city by any
form of ratification to give validity to the exemption, which
was attempted to be made by the present contract, of the
Faust factory and plant from taxation for fifty years on con-
dition that it was to be kept in operation for ten years. Even
if we construe the contract as having been intended to
exempt the factory and plant from taxation only so long as
it should be actually used and operated as a shoe factory, the
record shows that Faust & Son failed to perform their part
of the contract in several material particulars. Ibid,

New Improvements Taxable When Substantially Com-
pleted. The appellants, owners of the premises at the
northwest corner of Baltimore and Hanover streets, filed a
petition in the City Court, praying that assessments of the
improvements made by the Appeal Tax Court for the year
1907 be rescinded. Petitioners alleged that said assessment
($180,000) was illegal because the improvements were not
completed on October 1, 190(>, in many important respects,
especially as to plastering and inside woodwork. They re-
lied on Ordinance No. 170 by which the "Appeal Tax Court
is authorized and directed to have assessed for taxable
purposes all new improvements finished on or before the
first day of October of every year, the said improvements
to be construed as finished, when plastering and inside wood-

Maryland Tax Digest. 105

work are completed." The City Court found that the im-
provements "were so far completed on the first day of Octo-
ber, 1906, as to be liable to assessment," and that the assess-
ment for 1907 was legal, but that the amount was erroneous,
which was reduced to $150,000. This Court is not authorized
to review a question of fact and as the record does not
present any question of law to be considered, the appeal
must be dismissed. As the question argued is one of im-
portance, and one in which the public is concerned, we will
briefly state our conclusion on the merits of the case. We
are of the opinion that the Ordinance must be construed
to mean that new improvements are to be assessed when the
plastering and woodwork are substantially completed by
October 1st, and this shows that they were in this instance.
There was a formal opening of the building on November
1st, 1906, two months before the period began for which
the taxes were to be paid, and the work to be done after
October 1st was not of a character to justify us in holding
that it was within the meaning of the Ordinance. Ham-
burger v. Baltimore, 106 Md. 479.

Newly Discovered Property. Under Code, Art. 81,
sec. 12, property liable to taxation may be assessed for
the current year after the prescribed time for making the
annual levy. B. C. & A. Ryr Co. v. Wicomico County, 93
Md. 123.

No Assessment Void. No assessment can be declared
void, but the City Court must assess the property in ques-
tion anew. Baltimore v. Hurlock, 113 Md. 676.

106 Maryland Tax Digest.

Non-Resident Guardian and Ward. When a guardian
is appointed in this State the property of the ward held by
him is subject to taxation under the Code, Art. 81,
sec. 9, in the county where he was appointed, although
both guardian and ward reside in another county. Baldwin
v. Washington County, 85 Md. 145.

Northern Central R. R. Rolling Stock Assessable in
Baltimore. Assuming the home office of the appellee to
be in Baltimore, it follows that its rolling stock must be
assessed in that city. The right to tax the property of the
appellee is no longer an open question. The rolling stock
of a railroad company is not real estate under the General
Assessment Act; whether it be considered as movable fix-
tures, or as personal property it was, under the terms of that
Act, liable to assessment at the home office, or principal place
of business of the company. Appeal Tax Court v. N. C. R.
R. Co. 50 Md. 419.

Notice and an Opportunity to be Heard Essential to
Every Assessment. Baltimore City Charter, Sec. 150,
provides that before increasing the assessment of any prop-
erty heretofore assessed, the Appeal Tax Court shall notify
the owner by written or printed summons containing such
interrogatories in regard to the property as they may require
to be answered under oath, and fix a day to answer such
interrogatories and to present such proof as the owners
may desire. This section contemplates a hearing before
action is taken by the Appeal Tax Court, when its mind is

Maryland Tax Digest. 107

open and unbiased, and not after, when an ex parte
conclusion has been reached, and the natural and inevitable
disposition to sustain the position taken has been aroused.
Baltimore v. Poole, 97 Md. 70.

In the assessment of state corporation shares notice
of the assessment given to the corporation itself was suffi-
cient, and a notice to each non-resident stockholders is un-
necessary because in the taxation of its shares the corpora-
tion is treated by the statute as representing the stockholders,
and the tax in question was not invalid under the Fourteenth
Amendment of the Federal Constitution as a taking of plain-
tiff's property without due process of law. Corry v. Balti-
more, 96 Md. 310.

Notice and an opportunity to be heard are essential to the
validity of every assessment for taxation. That it is a rule
founded upon the first principles of natural justice, older
than written constitutions, that a citizen shall not be de-
prived of his life, liberty or property without an oppor-
tunity to be heard in defense of his rights, and that this
fundamental principle is applicable in its full force to the
method by which each individual's property is valued to
fix the basis of his liability for the payment of taxes. Mon-
ticello Distilling Co. v. Baltimore, 90 Md. 416.

Under the Act of 1908, Chap. 167, relating to the classi-
fication and assessment of property in Baltimore, "due
notice" does not necessarily mean that notice should be per-

108 Maryland Tax Digest.

sonally served in the process of taxation, and that the notices
which in this case was left at each house which was the
subject of taxation constituted due notice. Wannenwetch v.
Baltimore, 1*5 %JVTd. 453.

The notice in this case was addressed to the plaintiff
personally and not as trustee, yet he was thereby informed
of the increase proposed to be made in the assessment, and,
since he had a complete remedy by appeal to the City Court,
he is not entitled to apply to a court of equity. Baltimore
v. Gittings, 113 Md. 119.

The amount of the tax in this case, it will be seen, is fixed
by the Act itself, and it is well settled that where the Legis-
lature fixes the amount of the tax, no notice is necessary,
and in the absence of clear evidence that the tax is arbitrary
or oppressive, the. Legislature's decision is conclusive on the
Courts. Leser v. Wagner, 120 Md. (iTT ; Hyattsville v.
Smith, 106 Md. 318; Faust v. Building Association, 84 Md.
18G.

Before increasing the assessment of any property which
has been heretofore assessed, or adding any new property
not valued and returned to them by the proper assessor, it
shall be the duty of the Appeal Tax Court, as the case may
be, to notify the owner of such property by written or printed
summons, containing such interrogatories in regard to the
property as they may require to be answered on oath, and ap-
pointing a certain day for such owner to answer such interro-
gatories, either orally or in writing, and to make such state-
ment, or present such proof as he may desire in the premises ;

Maryland Tax Digest. 109

and such notice shall be served on such owner or left at his
place of abode at least five days (now ten days by Act of
1914) before the day of hearing appointed in such summons.
Baltimore City Charter, sec. 150.

Whenever the Appeal Tax Court of Baltimore City shall
purpose to alter or change any assessment or make any new
assessment they shall, before such assessment is made, give
at least five days (now ten days by Act of 1914) notice
thereof in writing served upon the owner of the property to
be assessed or reassessed, and if any owner be not found
within the limits of said City, then to the person in posses-
sion of the property to be assessed or in whose custody the
same may be, or if it be land, and no one be in the apparent
occupancy thereof, then by a notice posted on said land.
Code 1911, Art. 81, sec. 203, as amended by Act of 1914,
identical with provision in sec. 164a Baltimore City Charter.

Whenever the County Commissioners shall purpose to
alter or change any assessment, or make any new assess-
ments, they shall, before said assessment is made, give five
days (now ten days by Act of 1914) notice thereof in writing
to the owner of the property to be assessed, and if such
owner be not found within the limits of their county, then to
the person in possession of the property to be assessed, or in
whose custody the same may be, or if it be land and no one
be in the apparant occupancy thereof, then by a notice posted
on said land. Code 1911, Art. 81, sec. 204.

Obligations of Other States Taxable in Maryland — The
Exemption is Limited to the State Granting it. This is

110 Maryland Tax Digest.

an appeal from a pro forma order of the Baltimore City
Court whereby the Appeal Tax Court was directed to strike
from the list of property assessed to the appellees, as not sub-
ject to taxation, certain bonds and certificates of indebted-
ness of the states of New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and
of the cities of New York, Philadelphia, and of the County
of New York, due to the appellee, a resident of this State.
The question raised is whether the public debt of one state,
exempted by that state, owned by the resident of another,
is taxable by the state in which the owner resides. The im-
portance of the question, in a financial point of view, can
scarcely be magnified. The language of our organic law
is "that every person in the State or holding property there-
in ought to contribute his proportion of public taxes for the
support of the government, according to his actual worth in
real and personal property" (Bill of Rights). No reference
is made to the situs of the property as the ground of obliga-
tion; the elements of the duty are, the ability of the citi-
zen to pay, and the protection he enjoys under the govern-
ment. * * * That no state can pass any law impairing the
obligation of contract is a cardinal principle of constitutional
law. The inquiry is, does this maxim prohibit the imposi-
tion of taxes by a state upon the property of its citizens
or residents invested in the stocks of another state, exempted
by the law of that state from taxation? In the case of
Murray v. Charleston, 96 U. S. 445, the Supreme Court
of the United States declined determining the question now
presented because it was not necessarily involved in that

Maryland Tax Digest. Ill

case. Here the question arises in limine, and must be dis-
posed of. * * *

The exercise of the power to tax property, or rights rest-
ing in such contracts, does not in any sense impair the con-
tract, but rather enforces it, by asserting rights incident and
and collateral to them. The contract is, by its terms, limited
to the state granting it, as its authority is only co-extensive
with its territory, and cannot operate on the rights and
powers of other states. The situs of the stock being that of
the domicile of its holder, his property, or "jus disponendi"
according to the law of nations, is subject to the sovereign
powers of the state wherein he resides. Whether this power
should be exercised or not is a legislative, not a judicial
question. The owner being bound to contribute to the sup-
port of the government according to his worth in property,
cannot complain, if he is fairly taxed, according to his ability,
by the Legislature of his domicile. Appeal Tax Court v.
Patterson, 50 Md. 373.

The prejudicial consequences of allowing citizens of this
State the benefit of exemptions granted by other states are
too obvious to need illustration. The tendency of capital
to seek investment where it will be free from all contribu-
tion to public burdens is exemplified by instances too numer-
ous to be mentioned. Ibid.

October "Final and Conclusive" Clause. No property,
other than corporate property, not subject to taxation on
October first in each year, can enter into the taxable basis
for the ensuing fiscal year, though it become subject to taxa-

112 Maryland Tax Digest.

tion on the next day. The point of time, and the rule of law,
which control, are alike arbitrary, and necessarily so, but
are none the less final and conclusive, without authority and
without argument. The power, given in the proviso of sec.
171 (of the Baltimore City Charter) to assess after Octo-
ber first "property escaped or omitted" in the regular course
of valuation, is confined to property which was subject to
taxation on October first. Baltimore v. Jenkins, 96 Md.
195.

To avoid confusion and uncertainty some definite period
had to be adopted as the point of time, in each year, when
the valuation fixed upon the property actually assessed and
charged upon the books to each individual, would no longer
be open to question, but would be conclusively ascertained
and made binding, upon both the city and the taxpayer
alike. Hopkins v. Van IVyck, 80 Md. 15.

Improvements upon the real estate of a corporation in
Baltimore City completed prior to January 1st, are liable
to taxation for the ensuing year, although not assessed to
the corporation on October 1st, in the preceding year, that
date being fixed by law for the assessment to individuals of
property for taxation in said city. Skinner Dry Dock Co.
v. Baltimore, 96 "M'd. 32.

Property liable to taxation but which was omitted from
the assessment books at the time fixed by law for making
the tax levy may be subsequently assessed for taxation under
sec. 171 of the Baltimore City Charter. Ibid.

Maryland Tax Digest. 113

Omitted Property — When it May be Subsequently As-
sessed— Power to Assess for Previous Years. The local
law of Wicomico County provides that the Clerk of the
County Commissioners shall annually, before the first of
August, deliver a copy of the assessment of his collection
district to the Collector, but this provision does not prevent
the County Commissioners from subsequently assessing
property omitted from the levy. B. C. & A. Ry. Co. v.
Wicomico County, 93 Md. 113.

Property which has not been put on the assessment books
at the time the annual levy is made as required by law,
may be assessed at any subsequent time in the current year
when the law does not prohibit the adding of escaped prop-
erty by the assessors. Ibid.

County Commissioners are required by the Code, Art.
23, sec. 6, to make the levy of taxes annually before
the first of July. Sec. 83 of the same Article provides that
taxes shall be collected within four years after being levied.
The County Commissioners assessed certain property of the
defendant for the years 1896, 1897, 1898 and 1899. This
property, though taxable, had escaped taxation or been
omitted from the levy previous to 1899. The Company re-
fused to pay the taxes and the County Commissioners in-
stituted suit for their recovery. The levy made by the Com-
missioners for 1896, 1897 and 1898 was not made in pur-
suance of any power conferred upon them by the statute,
their authority to make a levy being confined to the current
vear of 1899, and the defendants are not obligated to pay

114: Maryland Tax Digest.

the taxes. Ibid. Note. — The power given to the Appeal
Tax Court of Baltimore City is much broader. Sec. 171
of the Charter authorizes the Court to make assessments
on omitted or escaped property for "current taxes and back-
taxes, not exceeding four years whenever the same may be
discovered." See Act of 1914, Chap. 532. (Appendix.)

In the case of escaped or omitted property the penalty
herein provided (an amount equal to one per centum per
annum of the gross amount of each bill, accounting from the
time the taxes became in arrear) and also interest shall be
added to the tax bills for the current and back years in the
same manner as if such property had not escaped or been
omitted. Act of 1914, Chap. 532, amending the Baltimore
City Charter.

Orphans' Courts Have no Power to Pass on Validity
of Taxes. Orphans' Courts have no power to pass upon
the validity of claims for taxes, as the exercise of such a
supervision of claims would constitute the Orphans' Court
a tribunal to review the action of those conducting the rev-
enue department of the State. Bonaparte v. State, 63 Md.
465.

Owner May Inspect Records. "Any owner of property
shall at all times be permitted to inspect the record of his
own property contained in the book of assessment records."
{Baltimore City Charter, sec. 161.) .Bonaparte v. State,
63 Md. 465.

Maryland Tax Digest. 115

Palace and Sleeping Cars Not Taxable in Maryland.

This appeal is from an order of the Baltimore City Court
striking from the assessment list thirty-six palace cars valued
and assessed by the Appeal Tax Court at $900,000. The
appellee is a corporation created by the State of Illinois
and has its principal place of business in Chicago. The
cars in questiion are used upon the various railroads that
run into and through Maryland. These cars are not assessa-
ble in this State. That question was definitely settled by the
Court in two cases. (See Appeal Tax Court v. P. IV. &
B. R. R. 50 Md. 397, and Same v. N. C. R. R. Co. 50 Md.
417.) There was no error in the order of the City Court.
Appeal Tax Court v. Pullman Palace Car Co. 50 Md 457.

Partially Charitable Institutions Liable to Taxation.

The Sisters of Charity of St. Joseph, incorporated by the
Legislature to promote "works of piety, charity and useful-
ness, especially for the care of the sick, the succor of aged,
infirm and necessitous persons and the education of young
females," owns a farm which, with the improvements, live
stock, furniture, etc., was assessed at $79,600. The evidence
shows that there are one or more buildings used for academic
purposes in which there are seventy-two paying scholars at
$250 per annum, though this income, it is insisted, is all
consumed in sustaining the benevolent object of the insti-
tution, and the school is but a means to that end. * * * In
Baltimore v. R. R. Co. 6 Gill, 290, this Court held "all ex-
emptions are to be strictly construed, they embrace only what
is within their terms." The liability to taxation of property

116 Maryland Tax Digest.

appropriated partly to worship and partly to secular pur-
poses is shown by the case of Proprietors' Meeting House v.
City of Lowell, 1 Met. 541. * * All the property of the ap-
pellees, real and personal, used in the conduct of an academy
or school for the education of young females, is a proper
subject for assessment, though the same buildings may be
partially used for hospital purposes or religious worship. If
the property is indivisible so that the value of the several
parts cannot be ascertained the amount of the net income
from the academy may be capitalized as the basis of assess-
ment. County Commrs. of Frederick County v. Sisters of
St. Joseph, 48 Md. 43.

Patent Rights That Constitute the Basis of Stock Values.

Shares of stock in a corporation the capital of which is
chiefly invested in patent rights are not exempt from taxa-
tion, nor should the value of the patents be subtracted from
the value of the shares ; a tax levied on the holders of such
shares is not in violation of Art. 1, sec. 8, of the Federal
Constitution. Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. State, 87 Md. 687.

Paving Tax Law a Valid Exercise of Legislative Power.
The decision of the questions presented on this appeal in-
volves the construction and validity of the Act of 1912,
Chap. 688, known as "the Special Paving Tax" Act for Bal-
timore City. The appellees contend that the Act is invalid
and unconstitutional as in conflict with the Fifteenth and
Twenty-third Articles of the Declaration of Rights and, also,
with the Constitution of the United States. The cases

Maryland Tax Digest. 117

bearing upon the subject of a special paving tax are too
numerous for us to attempt to review in this opinion. While
there is some conflict among them they all will be found to
rest upon the principle that there is a benefit to the abutting
property by reason of the public improvement made with
the public funds. The contention that the tax is void be-
cause the proceeds go into a general paving fund and not
raised to pay for improvements specially benefiting the
property assessed, we think, is fully answered by the case of
Jeliff v. Newark, 48 N. J. Law, 102, and other cases cited
in the appellant's brief. * * We hold that the Act of 1912,
Chap. 688, is a valid exercise of legislative power and is
free from constitutional objections urged against it. This
conclusion is in accord and is supported by the principles
announced by the best adjudged cases in the states and in
the Supreme Court of the United States. Leser v. Wagner,
120 Md. 671.

Paving Tax on Property Not on Owner. In Baltimore
a street paving tax is imposed on the property and not on the
owner, though the city may maintain a legal action against
the owner for the recovery of the tax. Eschbach v. Pitts,
6 Md. 71.

Penalty of Evasion. Any person who fails or refuses
to give to the assessor any bonds, notes, claims or other
evidences of debt, the same shall not be recovered until they
have been listed and the tax paid thereon, with the addition
of 50 per centum per annum from the time the tax accrued.
Code 1911, Art. 81, sec. 208.

118 Maryland Tax Digest.

Personal Property Held in Trust Shall be Assessed at
the Place of Residence of the Cestui Que Trust — Validity
of Statute Upheld. This appeal raises the question of the
validity of the Act of 1902, Chap. 486, which prescribes
the method of assessment and taxation of personal property.
The property involved in this case consists of railroad bonds,
in the hands of a corporation of Baltimore, held in trust for
two residents of Baltimore County. The Act (now sec.
215, Art. 81 of the Code 1911) provides that all securi-
ties and personal property of any kind whatsoever, not
exempt, in which any resident of any county of this State,
has an equitable interest, with the legal title to the same
in some other person or corporation who is a resident of
some other county or of the City of Baltimore, shall be
valued and assessed for state and county taxation to the
equitable owner in the county in which he or she may reside,
to the extent of his or her equitable interest, and the taxes
due thereon shall be paid by the holder of said legal title to
the collector of taxes for the county or city in which said
property is so valued and assessed. The corporation, in
this case, was assessed for the securities, an appeal was
taken to the City Court, and that tribunal, relying on the
Act of 1902, directed the Appeal Tax Court to abate the
assessment. *****

As the Act of 1902 specifically fixes the situs for the taxa-
tion of personal property held in trust at the residence of
the beneficial owner, the order appealed from was properly
passed unless the Act is to be regarded as in conflict with the
Bill of Rights, as is contended by the appellants. * * But

Maryland Tax Digest. 119

we find nothing in the interpretation of the 15th Article
of the Bill of Rights adopted in Latrobe v. Baltimore, 19
Md. 13, as that case has been construed by this Court, to
impair the validity of the Act of 1902 in regulating the as-
sessment and taxation of the class of personal property in-
volved in the present case. Baltimore v. Safe Deposit &
Trust Co. 97 Md. 659.

When property is held in trust there are two persons each
of whom in a certain sense is its owner. The trustee who
holds the title is the owner in a legal and technical sense,
but the cestui que trust is the beneficial and substantial
owner. We do not think that the Legislature has exceeded
its power over the subject of taxation or violated any of the
provisions of the Bill of Rights or Constitution in providing
that personal property of the kind involved in this case, shall,
for purposes of assessment and taxation, be treated as be-
longing to its substantial owner and not to its technical
holder. Ibid.

When the personal property held in trust consists of stock
of corporations in this State, the Act of 1902, being in pan
materia, the existing laws requiring the corporation to pay
the taxes on its stock for its stockholder, the two laws should
be construed together and the residence of the cestui que
trust be treated as the situs for taxation and the taxes be
paid by the corporation in accordance with the uniform sys-
tem in force in this State for the payment of such taxes.
Ibid.

120 Maryland Tax Digest.

We must not be understood to hold that the Act of 1902
is valid in so far as it may conflict with the special provision
made by Sec. 51 of Art. 3 of the Constitution for the taxa-
tion of goods and chattels permanently located, or of mort-
gages and the debts thereby secured, or that the Act was in-
tended to apply to leaseholds or any interest in lands. Ibid.

Where a person in this State has an equitable interest in
property, the legal title to which is in the name of a non-
resident, such equitable owner shall pay the taxes on it.
Code 1911, Art. 81, sec. 2.

Personal Property of a Cemetery Company Taxable.

The personal property of a cemetery company such as carts,
horses, etc., are subject to valuation and assessment. Appeal
Tax Court v. Baltimore Cemetery Company, 50 Md. 435.

Persons, not Property, Taxed. In the State of Mary-
land no property is liable to taxation ; persons are liable,
under the Bill of Rights, to be taxed in respect to property.
Tax Cases, 12 G. & J. 130.

Taxes of the kind here dealt with, are, under Article 15
of our Declaration of Rights, levied not on things, but on the
owners of things ; and the value of the thing owned fixed the
measure of the owner's liability to contribute in taxes to-
wards the support of the government. Appeal Tax Court
v. Patterson, 50 Md. 366 ; U. S. Elec. Light & Pozver Co.
v. State, 79 Md. 63 ; Carstairs v. Cochran, 95 Md. 500.

Though the language employed by the statute, if read
literally, may indicate an intention to impose the tax on the

Maryland Tax Digest. 121

property, that is not its meaning when considered in con-
nection with the settled policy of Maryland as announced in
the Declaration of Rights. Car stairs v. Cochwn, 95 'MV1.
501.

Piers Extending Into the River Beyond the City Limits
are Taxable by the City. The Western Maryland Tidewater
Railroad constructed a coal pier and a freight pier on the
Patapsco, projected from the bulkhead into the water to the
pierhead line with the water flowing under them. The whole
cost of the piers was $400,000. The appellant states that
the property is properly assessable for only $35,000 in the
city, but that the rest is illegal and void because the property
is not within the city or within the assessing power of the
Appeal Tax Court. The contention of the appellees is that
inasmuch as the piers are attached to and project from the
land of the appellant which borders on this navigable river,
and are immovable structures they are taxable by the city.
It is clear that the Legislature never intended that such im-
provements should be cut in two at the point of high water
mark on the bank of the river when they were made, and
part be taxed by the city and the rest by the county. With-
out this right to use the land, which is in Baltimore City,
the improvements would be useless, as they are dependent
upon the land for their existence. They are so situated as
to be dependent upon the city for police and fire protection,
and if the appellants' theory be correct they would practi-
cally have neither. * * * We are of the opinion that the
city's boundaries (in view of the evident intent of the Legis-

122 Maryland Tax Digest.

lature in fixing said boundaries) are coincident with those
of the proprietors of lands bounding on this river, which
have been extended under and by virtue of the statute
and that these piers are such improvements as come within
the principle referred to above. Western Maryland T. R.
Co. v. Baltimore City, 106 Md. 561. See, also, Goodsell v.
Lawson, 42 Md. 373; Tome Institute v. Crothers, 87 Md.
584 ; Hess v. Muir, 65 Md. 603.

Powers and Duties of County Commissioners in the
Levying of Taxes. Under the authority conferred upon
County Commissioners by Code, Art. 25, sec. 7, to "levy
all needful taxes" and to "pay or discharge all claims against
the county expressly or impliedly authorized by law," the
Commissioners have the power to enter into a contract for
a fireproof vault for the safekeeping of the records of the
Circuit Court, and to levy taxes to pay the cost thereof.
Smith Fireproof Co. v. Munroe, 97 Md. 371.

The County Commissioners are a body politic ; a corpora-
tion charged with the administration of the county affairs,
and can only do what their charter powers, by express lan-
guage or necessary implication, permit. In this case the ap-
pellant asked for an injunction against the County Com-
missioners to prohibit them from paying to the Clerk of the
Circuit Court for Montgomery County the sum of six hun-
dred dollars for the preparation of an index of the public
records of the county, appellant alleging that, under the law,
the making of this index was a part of the regular duties
of the Clerk, and that there was no authority for giving him

Maryland Tax Digest. 123

extra pay therefor. The Clerk plead a special order of the
Circuit Court ordering him to prepare the index, said order
containing a clause that the clerk "shall be paid therefor by
said county such compensation as this Court may deem
reasonable." The Circuit Court dismissed the bill for an
injunction, and in this the Court erred. The injunction
ought to have been granted. The power and right of the
court of equity to interfere by injunction in such case is un-
equivocally asserted in Baltimore v. Gill, 31 Md. 393, and in
no case since has that principle been questioned. Peter v.
Prettyman, 62 Md. 571.

It is no longer an open question in this State whether
a taxpayer, having no other special interest different from
that of the public, may crave the interference of the court
of equity to prevent illegal taxation. Ibid.

If there be any law requiring the Clerk to do this work,
at public expense, it would be the duty of the County Com-
missioners to provide for its payment; but if the duty was
upon the Clerk to make this special index, and the intention
of the law was that he should be paid in another way, then
the claim is improperly referred. If, by law, the Court was
authorized to require this duty of the Clerk at public ex-
pense, then the County Commissioners were bound to pay
for it, but not otherwise. Ibid.

It was the duty of the Clerk to do this work and to get
his compensation therefor in fees from persons desiring
copies of instruments, and if he did not collect such fees, the
county cannot be charged with the result of his negligence.
Ibid.

124 Maryland Tax Digest.

Appellants in this case sought an injunction against the
Commissioners of Baltimore County from including in the
levy for 1878 three certain items, viz: "Contingent ex-
penses," "Deficiency in back levy of 1877," and "Interest on
loan authorized by Act of Assembly," aggregating $83,000.
Each of these items seems to be authorized by law and were
properly included in the levy of 1878. But there is no
question as to the jurisdiction and authority of the Circuit
Court for Baltimore County to restrain the Commissioners
from levying taxes for purposes not contemplated by the
law. Webster v. Baltimore County, 51 Md. 399.

In the appointment of a person as tax collector who at
the time was a defaulter for taxes . collected in previous
years, County Commissioners do not make themselves re-
sponsible to the sureties on his bond. Frownfelter v. State,
66 Md. 85.

Section 17 and sections 157 and 166, of Article 81 of the
Code, confer ample powers on County Commissioners to
revalue previously assessed property and to assess new ac-
quisitions of property. It is essential, however, that the
owner should have notice in each case. A subsequent ap-
plication by a taxpayer for a correction does not cure a lack
of notice, although the party assessed refuses to give the
Commissioners the name of the owner of the property. The
taxpayer's remedy, in the case of failure to receive a notice,
is an injunction and not a writ of mandamus. Baltimore
County v. Winand, 77 Md. 524

Maryland Tax Digest. 125

The County Commissioners have the exclusive power to
levy and collect taxes, and in some cases to value and assess
property in the manner pointed out by law. While they con-
stitute a tribunal with limited and statutory powers, yet
acting within the scope of such powers, their action is con-
clusive, and cannot be reviewed by a court of equity. The
collection of taxes will not be interfered with or restrained
by a court of equity for mere irregularities in their pro-
ceedings, or for any hardship that may result from their col-
lection. It is only when the tax itself is clearly illegal, or the
tribunal imposing it has clearly exceeded its powers, or the
rights of the taxpayers have been violated, that the inter-
position of the special remedy by injunction can be success-
fully invoked, and only then when no appellate tribunal has
been created with power to remedy the wrong. Allegany
County v. Union Mining Co. 61 Md. 548.

Where several tracts of land are returned by the owner,
each tract being known by a name, and each having a spe-
cific number of acres and particular location, then it is a
manifest error on the part of the Commissioner to change
the statement and assess the several tracts as one body of
land. Ibid.

County Commissioners cannot change the method of as-
sessing property, as provided by law, but they have the
power to alter the 'assessments, as made by the assessors,
if the property has diminished or increased in value. Ibid.

Where, under a local law, the Treasurer of Harford
County was required to remit the full amount of State taxes

126 Maryland Tax Digest.

collected to the State Treasurer, his commissions are paya-
ble by the county. Allen v. State, 98 Md. 700.

Power of Appeal Tax Court to Classify. The Appeal
Tax Court of Baltimore City has ample authority and power
to list and classify Annex property, as subject to the full
city rate, when the property reaches that condition of de-
velopment provided by the Acts of 1888 and 1902, and it has
the further power to give the necessary notice and a hearing
to the property holders whose property is to be affected
thereby. Sams v. Fisher, 106 Md. 169.

Power of Legislature to Exempt. It has been settled by
repeated decisions of this Court that Article 15 of the Decla-
ration of Rights constitutes no bar to the right of the Legis-
lature to exempt certain kinds of property from taxation
when that exemption is not an arbitrary discrimination in
favor of a particular class. Simpson v. Hopkins, 82 Md.
488.

Private Alleys Assessable. When the owner of a tract
of land conveys a part thereof describing one line as bind-
ing on an alley of a designated width to be left open for
use in common, and said alley is a part of the land of the
grantor and not a public alley, then such alley may be as-
sessed for purposes of taxation to the grantor and it is not
exempted because of the creation of a private easement on
it. Hill v. Williams, 104 Md. 595.

Maryland Tax Digkst. 127

Promise to Pay Taxes Bars the Four- Year Limit.

Where taxes have been levied and uncollected for more
than four years (when under the Code, Art. 81, sec. 33,
parties may plead in bar of recovery) a promise on the part
of the taxpayer to pay such taxes, made after the expira-
tion of the time prescribed, must be held to take them out
of the operation of the statute. The collector has the right
in such cases to enforce their payment by execution and sale
of the property. Perkins v. Dyer, 71 Md. 421.

Public Improvements and Taxes Incident Thereto Left
Exclusively to Municipalities. The quesion as to whether
or not the paving of a street or any other public improve-
ment will benefit property in the vicinity, is a question for
the exclusive judgment of the Mayor and City Council, and
their action is final and conclusive. Courts have no power,
under the law, upon the demand of property owners who are
taxed, to review the action of the citv authorities. Balti-
more v. Johns Hopkins Hospital, 56 Md. 28.

The presumption is that those who are specially assessed
for certain public improvements have been benefited thereby.
Ibid.

Assessments for public improvements must be reasonable
and equal, and when they fail in this respect they cease to
be a contribution to a common burden, or a tax, and must
be regarded as an extortion and confiscation, against the
execution of which any citizen may appeal to the courts for
relief and protection. Ibid.

128 Maryland Tax Digest.

The imposition of a local assessment for public improve-
ments is an exercise of the taxing power, and an ordinance
for the repaving of a street is not void because it failed to
provide notice upon the owners of adjacent property. Ibid.

The action of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore in
delegating to the City Commissioner the authority to ascer-
tain the cost of repaving a certain part of Pratt street, and
the apportionment of cost to each property owner, was
proper and legal, the work assigned to the Commissioner
being ministerial in its character and confined chiefly to mat-
ters of measurement and arithmetical calculation. Ibid.

Public Improvements not Invalid Because Contractors
did not Execute Contract Strictly According to Its Terms.

By an Ordinance of 1881, the Mayor and City Council of
Baltimore directed Gay street, between Pratt and Aisquith
streets, to be repaved with "Camp's Patent Process of Bel-
gian Block Pavement," under the provisions of an Ordinance
approved in 1874. The Ordinance of 1881 provided that
two-thirds of the cost of this repaving should be paid by
the owners of the property abutting on the street, and that
the other one-third should be defrayed by the city. An
agreement was made between the city and the owners of the
patent for the paving and kerbing designated by the Ordi-
nance. The repaving, however, was not commenced until
March, 1882, and was finished sometime in the following
fall, being accepted and fully paid for by the city. There-
upon an injunction was procured at the suit of the appellee
restraining the collection of the tax, and from the decree

Maryland Tax Digest. 129

making the injunction perpetual this appeal has been
taken. * * *

The validity of the tax has been assailed upon two
grounds, viz : first, because the contract between the city and
the contractors is alleged to be illegal and void ; and secondly,
because the work actually done under the contract is claimed
not to be in accordance either with the contract or with the
Ordinance. It was contended that the contract was invalid
because the work had not been done within the time speci-
fied by it and that though the Ordinance directed the repav-
ing to be done with "Camp's Patent Process of Belgian
Block Pavement, " yet the contract, made under that Ordi-
nance, provided that the work should be done in some other
and different manner. It appears that the patent provided
that the bed of the street should be rolled at right angles to
the kerbing, whereas the contract provided that it either
might be rammed or rolled, and that while the patent pro-
vides that the stones when laid shall be placed diagonally
or obliquely to the road bed, the contract provides that they
should be laid at right angles to the road bed, and that
while the patent provides that the blocks should be rolled
with a heavy steam roller, the contract provides that each
block shall be rammed separately with a hand rammer. * * *

As the provision in the patent with respect to the rolling
of the street bed before the stones are laid thereon, wa»
designed to secure a solid bed it is not perceived that the
clause in the contract allowing the street bed to be either
rolled or rammed, instead of being only rolled, can possibly

130 Maryland Tax Digest.

create any repugnancy. The object aimed at was precisely
the same in both instances, and the mere mode of accom-
plishing that object makes no practical or substantial differ-
ence. There is no inconsistency between the patent and the
contract in regard to the mode by which the stones, when
laid, are to be pressed or driven to a solid foundation. The
application of force was required to accomplish this result.
Whether the force was applied by the one or the other
agency was wholly immaterial, provided the same purpose
was accomplished. Whilst the contract provided that the
stones when laid should be covered with sand ; it also provid-
ed by declaring that Camp's process should be used, that the
spaces between the stones should be filled in with elastic
cement ; and there was not in fact, as shown by the evidence,
any irreconcilability between them in this respect. * * *

The objection that the stones were separately rammed in-
stead of being rolled with a steam roller, cannot be allowed
to prevail. We are at a loss to see what possible difference
it can make whether the one or the other means was adopted
to accomplish the result intended, namely, the driving of the
stones home to a solid bearing or foundation. It can scarcely
be seriously contended that this pavement after being com-
pleted, is any the less Camp's patent process because a ram-
mer was used instead of a steam roller to force the stones to
a solid foundation. The one mode is certainly a mechanical
equivalent to the other. These objections, which relate to
the manner in which the work was done, even though con-
ceded to be departures from the terms of the contract, could
riot on that account, be allowed to defeat the collection of the

Maryland Tax Digest. 131

•

tax. This doctrine is fully, supported by authority. It fol-
lows, therefore, that the decree appealed from was er-
roneous; and that it must be reversed and the bill be dis-
missed. Baltimore v. Raymo, 68 Md. 569.

Purpose of the "Landed Property" Act of 1902 Re-
lating to Annexed Territory. The property involved in
this controversy is situate in a block of ground bounded by
North avenue, St. Paul, Charles and Twentieth streets. The
bill avers that the block of ground is surrounded by streets,
paved and improved, but as it does not contain six dwellings
or storehouses within its boundaries, the appellant is not
liable to pay taxes for city purposes at a higher rate than
60 cents per $100 of the assessed value of the property. * * *
It is clear, from the facts in the case, that the property in
question is not landed property within the meaning of either
the "Foutz Act" or the provision in Section 19 of the An-
nexation Act of 1888. It is improved city property; simi-
lar to other property within the old city limits and by the
express terms of the Act, "from and after the year 1900, the
property, real and personal in the territory annexed, shall
be liable to taxation and assessment, in the same manner and
form as similar property within the present limits of the
city." * * * *

By the Act of 1902, Chap- 130, landed property was con-
strued to mean real estate, whether in fee simple or lease-
hold, and whether improved or unimproved. We fully agree
with the contention of the appellee that this Act was passed
to prevent property which was in no sense city property

132 Maryland Tax Digest.

from being subject to the full city rate until certain things
were done by the city. It certainly was never Intended to
affect the property which, at the time of its passage, was
not only landed property but not even suburban property,
but in the fullest sense of the term, city property, bounded
by the streets, and enjoying every advantage and facility
that attaches to similar property within the old city limits.
Hiss v. Baltimore, 103 Md. 623.

There are two conditions under which the full city rate
may be imposed upon this annexed property. First, when
the "landed property" has been divided into lots and com-
pactly built on with a view to fronting on a street not yet
constructed but contemplated by the persons who project it
or build with reference to it, though the municipality has not
opened such street or accepted a dedication of it. Secondly,
when, though still "landed property," that is, rural property,
in the sense that it has not been divided into lots, it is inter-
sected by opened and constructed streets — by municipal
authority — which streets form blocks and upon which blocks
there are at least six houses. In the second instance, though
#ie residue of the block be unimproved or be not laid out in
lots, the whole block will be liable to be taxed at the current
city rate, as soon as six houses are erected on it. Sindall *.
Baltimore, 93 Md. 535.

Railroad Exemption Not Transferable. The exemption
from taxation granted by the Act of 1886 to the Baltimore
& Eastern Shore Ry. was intended to apply only to that
Company and could not be transferred to another corpora-

Maryland Tax Digest. 133

tion, without express statutory authority. B. C. & A. Ry.
Co. v. Wicomico County, 103 Md. 277.

Railroad Rolling Stock not Assessable When its Princi-
pal Office is out of the State. It is contended on the part
of the appellee that the depot and stations of the appellant
in the City of Baltimore must be regarded as its principal
office of business in this State, and that being so, the domi-
cile of the corporation must be taken as located there so far
as this State is concerned, and in the absence of legislation
fixing a different situs for the rolling stock of the appellant,
the portion of it assessed must be regarded as located in
Baltimore. We are not able to perceive, however, that this
position is tenable. The assessment Act must have a reason-
able' and not a strained construction ; and no fiction can
justify us in saying that any portion of the rolling stock is
permanently located in Baltimore. Whether the home office
of the corporation be at Philadelphia or at Wilmington is a
question we need not decide, but it is quite certain that it
is not in Baltimore ; and the fact that Baltimore is one of the
termini of the appellant's road can make no difference in this
respect. It is clear, as the law now stands, there can be no
well founded claim to assess this property in Baltimore.
P. IV. & B. R. R. Co. v. Appeal Tax Court, 50 Md. 415.

Railroad Taxable as Lessee. Where a railroad com-
pany held real property under a city ordinance providing for
a formal lease for 99 years from the city to the company,
the company is the substantial owner and taxable on the

134 Maryland Tax Digest.

leasehold interest. Appeal Tax Court v. R. R. Co., 50 Md.
276.

Mortgage bonds issued by a corporation are taxable to the
holders thereof in the counties where they reside. Mus-
grove v. B. & O. R. Co., Ill Md. 635.

Railroad Tunnels and Bridges not Separately Assessable.

Regarding the Act of 1876, Chap. 159, as unrepealed by the
General Assessment Act, it is quite plain that the tunnel
under Hoffman street, belonging to the Union Railroad
Company, forming a part of the roadway, and the bridges
in the line of the road, were not objects of separate valua-
tion and assessment. It is only the road as such, irrespective
of the tunnels or bridges that should have been valued and
assessed, that part of the road running through the tunnel
to be valued and assessed at the same rate that any other
equal portion of the road may be valued. The appellee has
an easement in the way occupied by its road, and whether
that easement be under or over the public street it is an ele-
ment of value to the road, and as such should be included in
the valuation of the road itself. But few railroad com-
panies have anything more than a mere easement in the ways
occupied by their roads, and it has never been held that be-
cause the company did not own the freehold estate in the
bed of the road that nothing but the mere superstructures
there could be assessed to the company. Appeal Tax Court
v. W. M. R. R. Co., 50 Ml. 274.

Receivers' Liability for Taxes. The ordinary remedies
for the collection of taxes against property which is under

Maryland Tax Digest. 135

the control of a court of equity are suspended, and payment
can be secured only on order of the court. It is the duty
of the Collector to apply to the court for the payment of the
taxes, interest and penalties. When the Collector fails to
so apply and the fund in the receiver's hand is disbursed
he cannot recover the penalty from the receiver. Blakistone
v. State, 117 Md. 237.

Real Estate to be Assessed at Its Actual Value Without
Regard to Mortgage Liens. The appellant, as trustee of
his wife, is the owner of a farm in Harford County, which
is assessed for taxation on the assessment books of that
county at $8,320. This farm is encumbered with mortgage
liens amounting to $16,250. The appellant applied to the
County Commissioners to have the whole of said assess-
ment abated, because of said mortgage liens, but his applica-
tion was refused. His farm was about to be sold for the
taxes, when he applied to the Circuit Court for an injunc-
tion. His application was refused and hence this appeal.
The only question raised here, or intended to be raised, is
whether the real estate which is mortgaged should be as-
sessed and taxed at its actual assessed value, without re-
gard to the mortgage liens, or whether the amount of such
liens shall be first deducted from the assessed value in order
to ascertain the taxable value. The appellant contends he. is
entitled to the deduction mentioned, and he bases his con-
tention upon the 15th Article of the Bill of Rights, which
provides, among other things, that "every person in the State,
or person holding property therein, ought to contribute his

136 Maryland Tax Digest.

proportion of public taxes for the support of the Govern-
ment according to his actual worth in money and personal
property." If this were a new question, its importance
would demand a full consideration and discussion ; but it has
been definitely settled by our predecessors in the cases known
as "The Tax Cases under the Act of 1841" reported in 12
G. & J. 117, in which without delivering an opinion, the
rulings of the lower Court, refusing the deductions and
abatements now claimed, were affirmed. Allen v. Harford
County, 74 Mi. 294.

Under the Act of 1841 mortgages were taxed, but under
our present revenue system they are exempt. We have,
however, in recent cases clearly recognized the power of the
Legislature, notwithstanding Art. 15 of the Bill of Rights,
to tax the full value of both the investments of mortgagees
in mortgages, and the property mortgaged to secure such
investments. Appeal Tax Court v. Rice, 50 Md. 319; Bal-
timore v. Canton, 63 Md. 237. The expediency of such
taxation it is for the Legislature alone to determine. Ibid.

Reclaiming Taxes. Nothing we have said is to be taken
as holding that taxes actually paid under the Act of 1892
can be reclaimed. A taxpayer may waive his right to be
heard, and if he voluntarily pays a tax which the Legislature
has the right to impose but which because of defects in
the statute could not have been collected by legal process he
cannot be allowed to complain that he had no notice of the
assessment or had no opportunity to contest it. Monticello
Co. v. Baltimore, 90 Md. 433. (Note.— The defect in the

Maryland Tax Digest. 137

Act of 1892 as to notice, was cured by the Act of 1900, Chap.
320.)

Reclassification Notice. When the Appeal Tax Court is
informed that property within the Annex territory has been
brought within the conditions prescribed by the Annexation
Act which warrant the imposition of the regular city rate of
taxation they should first give notice to the owner of their
purpose to impose that rate fixing a time and place of hear-
ing. A property owner who has not received a proper notice
is entitled to an injunction restraining the collection of the
tax. Baltimore v. Poole, 97 Md. 67.

The "due notice" required by the Act of 1908 for the clas-
sification of property does not necessarily mean that notice
should be personally served in the process of taxation. The
notices in this case were left at each house and that con-
stituted due notice. Wannenwetch v. Baltimore, 115 Md.
453.

Reclassification Power. The Appeal Tax Court has the
power to give the necessary notice to property owners whose
property is to be affected by its classification as city property.
Sams v. Fisher, 106 Md. 155.

i

Recovery of Taxes. It has been repeatedly held in this
State that where an Act authorizes a tax it mav be recovered
in an action of assumpsit. Baltimore v. Howard, 6 H. &
J. 383 ; Dashiell v. Baltimore, 45 Md. 615 ; Appeal Tax Court
v. W. M. R. R. Co., 50 Md. 274; Bassett v. Ocean City, 118
M'd. 119.

138 Maryland Tax Digest.

Registration Does not Determine Residence. The sole
fact that the names of the appellee in this case appeared
upon the registration books and he voted in Harford County
at the November election, does not of itself determine his
residence. Kinehart v. Howard, 90 Md. 5.

Relinquishment of Taxing Power by State. It has been
established by numerous decisions of this Court, of the
Supreme Court of the United States, as well as by the whole
current of authority in this country, that the power of taxa-
tion will never be held to be relinquished by the State unless
the intention to relinquish is declared in clear and unam-
biguous terms. Appeal Tax Court v. University of Md.,
50 Md. 464.

"Residence" and "Domicile." ♦ There is a broad dis-
tinction between domicile in a legal and technical sense, by
which one's civil status and the rights of persons and prop-
erty are determined and residence required by the Constitu-
tion, as a qualification for the exercise of political rights.
"Domicile" in a legal sense, has, as we all know, a fixed
and definite meaning, and yet the word domicile is nowhere
to be found in the Constitution. Residence, although ana-
logous in many respects, is not to be understood in the same
sense as domicile in law by which the rights of persons and
property are governed. Schaeffer v. Gilbert, 73 Md. 70.

Residence is Where One Resides the Greater Part of
the Year. The personal property of residents of this State

Maryland Tax Digest. 139

shall be subject to taxation in the county or city where the
resident bona fide resides for the greater part of the year
for which the tax may or shall be levied, and not elsewhere,
except goods and chattels permanently located, which shall
be taxed in the city or county where they are so located.
Constitution of Maryland Art. 3, sec. 51.

"Residence," as used in the Constitution, does not mean
one's permanent place of abode, where he intends to live all
his days, or for an indefinite or unlimited time; nor does it
mean one's residence for a temporary purpose, with the in-
tention of returning to his former residence, when that pur-
pose shall have been accomplished, but means one's actual
home, in the sense of having no other home, whether he in-
tends to reside there permanently or for a definite or in-
definite length of time. Schaeffer v. Gilbert, 73 Md. 70.

Residence Issues Arising in Decedent's Estates. A will
must be probated in the county in which the testator re-
sided as provided by the Code, Art. 93, sec. 334, and
when it is offered in an Orphans' Court, the £ourt has the
power to inquire and decide as to whether decedent was a
resident of that county at the time of his death. Ober-
lander v. Emmel, 104 Md. 260.

As the right to admit the will to probate depends upon
the residence of the testator at the time of his death, the
jurisdicion to decide where that residence was, is involved
in and is an inseparable part of the power to grant the pro-
bate. Stanley v. Safe Deposit Co., 87 Md. 454. (Also

140 Maryland Tax Digest.

see Harris v. Pue, 39 Md. 542 ; Shultz v. Houck, 29 Md. 24 ;
Ensor v. Graff, 43 Md. 294.)

Residence not Dependent on Intention, In our judg-
ment a change of domicile, so far as it respects the question
of taxation, could not be effected by intention alone, and
without actual removal. So long as appellant continued to
reside in Charles County he was liable to taxation as a citi-
zen thereof. He notified the County Commissioners of his
purpose to remove before the levy was made, but the levy
for the year was actually completed while he so continued to
reside in Charles County, and before he removed therefrom,
and he is chargeable with the taxes assessed for that year.
Stoddert v. Ward, 31 Md. 568.

A mere declaration of an intention to abandon will not
be sufficient. Vogler v. Geiss, 51 Md. 410.

We find nothing to indicate that Miss Dickinson intended
to abandon the St. Paul street house as a residence. Her
absence from the house was always temporary in charactet
and with an intention to return. It was generally by medi-
cal advice, to regain her health. It is obvious that she did
not intend to abandon the house as a place of residence.
Barnett v. Dickinson, 93 Md. 268.

The provision of the State Constitution provided ttiat
personal property shall be taxed in the county in which the
owner resides for the greater part of the year does not apply
to the taxation of corporations. B. C. & A. Ry. Co, v.
Wicomico County, 93 Md. 114.

Maryland Tax Digest. 141

The burden of proof is on the party claiming to have made
a change of residence. Judson on Taxation, p. 532 (citing
Mitchell v. United States, 21 Wall. 350 ; Desmare v. United
States, 93 U. S. 605 ; Dicey on Conflict of Laws, Am. Ed.,
p. 131).

Where it is shown that a person has acquired a residence
in one locality, he retains the same until it is affirmatively
shown that he has acquired a residence in another locality.
Turner v. Crosby, 85 Md. 180.

Temporary absence, with a continuous intention to re-
turn, will not deprive one of his residence, though it ex-
tends through a series of years. Langhammer v. Munter,
80 Md. 518.

If one engages in business in another state, but leaves his
family permanently at his former place of residence, he re-
mains taxable there. Nugent v. Bates, 51 la. 77 ; McCutchen
v. Rice Co., 7 Fed. 558.

Residence of Corporations. A corporation incorporated
by another state is a resident of such state only : Bank v.
Barle, 13 Peters, 588 ; Ohio & Miss. R. R. Co. v. Wheeler,
J Black, 295 ; and must be treated as a natural person would
be who resides in such state. Louisville R. R. Co. v. Letson,
2 Howard, 555.

Residence of Students. We agree that where a residence
of the appellee at the college, for the purpose of pursuing
his studies would not, in itself, be sufficient to prove that

142 Maryland Tax Digest.

he meant to abandon his original residence. In the absence
of other proof, the law would presume he was there for
the purpose of pursuing his studies, and this purpose being
accomplished, he intended to returnto his former residence.
But the appellee, who went from Harford County to attend
college in Baltimore City, has lived in the latter place for
seven years, has supported himself there, and has transferred
his registration as a voter from the county to the city. These
facts, we think, show a bona fide intention to abandon his
former residence to make his actual residence in Baltimore
City. Schaeffer v. Gilbert, 73 Md. 71.

Residents Who Remove After Levy Assessable. So long
as a person continues to reside in a county he is liable to
taxation as a citizen thereof, and if the levy for the tax is
completed before he removes therefrom he is chargeable with
the taxes for that year. Stoddert v. Ward, 31 Md. 566.

Right to Assess for Particular Benefits. The right to
assess property in particular to the extent that it is deemed
specially benefited by local improvements is to be referred
to the power of taxation and has been recognized and
sanctioned in all the states. The theory on which such as-
sessments are made is that those whose property is thus
enhanced and who thus receive peculiar benefits from the
improvements should contribute specially to defray its cost.
/ Lewis Eminent Domain, sec. 5; Gould v. Baltimore, 59
Md. 378 ; Hagerstown v. Startzman, 93 MI. 609. The power
to make such assessments has been expressly granted to the

Maryland Tax Digest. 143

Mayor and City Council of Baltimore and has been exer-
cised by it for a long time. (Alexander v. Baltimore, 5 Gill,
383.) Latter v. Baltimore, 110 Md. 447.

Rolling Stock. The total assessment and valuation of
rolling stock of railroad companies made in the assessment
district in which is the legal situs of said rolling stock, shall
be divided among the counties and the City of Baltimore
in proportion to the mileage of the railroads located in such
counties and city respectively. When the boards of review
in the counties and City of Baltimore have completed the
assessment they shall report to the State Tax Commission
the total assessment of the rolling stock so made in their re-
spective counties and in said city, and the assessment dis-
trict in which is the situs of said rolling stock, and the State
Tax Commission shall thereupon make the apportionment
of such total valuation among the several counties and the
City of Baltimore according to the mileage therein, certi-
fying the same to the county boards and the Appeal Tax
Court of Baltimore; and such proportions, respectively,
shall thereafter be valued and assessed for purposes of taxa-
tion in such respective counties and Baltimore. Code 1911,
Art. 81, sec. 212.

The rolling stock of a railway whose road extends through
other counties of the State is not taxable in the county in
which the principal office of the corporation is located since
the Acts of 1896, Chaps. 120 and 140, B. C. & A. Ry. Co.
v. Wicomico County, 93 Md. 131.

144 Maryland Tax Digest.

Palace and sleeping cars owned by a foreign corporation
having its principal place of business outside of Maryland
and leased to railroad companies which use them upon their
various roads in Maryland are not taxable under the Act of
1896, Chap. 260. Appeal Tax Court v. Pullman Co., 50 Md.
456.

Savings Banks Tax a Tax on the Franchise and not on
Property of Banks. Every savings bank shall pay annually
a franchise tax to the amount of one- fourth of one per
centum on the total amount of deposits held by such savings
bank. The State Tax Commissioner shall calculate said
tax and apportion one-fourth to the State and three-fourths
to the county or city in which said bank is situated, Balti-
more's share to be reported to the Appeal Tax Court. Code
1911, Art. 81, sec. 91.

In Massachusetts v. Provident Inst., 12 Allen, 312, it
was contended that a tax upon the deposits of savings banks
was unconstitutional because it was an arbitrary tax upon
the property of a certain class of corporations only and not
laid uniformly upon all property in the State, but it was
held by the Court to be a tax upon the franchise of such
corporations and not upon their property. Upon appeal to
the Supreme Court of the United States, Provident Inst. v.
Mass., 6 Wallace, 630, the judgment in this case was sus-
tained. State v. P. IV. & B. R. R. Co., 45 Md. 380.

The securities in which the deposits of a savings bank
are invested are not taxable. The capital stock and surplus

Maryland Tax Digest. 145

funds of a savings bank, distinct from its deposits, are taxa-
ble after assessment and levy. Westminster v. Westminster
Savings Bank, 92 *M'd. 63.

Deposits of a savings bank invested in ground rents are
not taxable. State v. Central Savings Bank, 67 Md. 292.

Money deposited in' savings banks in other states, paying
interest, and owned by residents of this State are taxable.
See "evidences of debt" clause, Code 1911, Art. 81, sec. 2.

If the defendant bank still carried on substantiallv the
business of a savings bank the mere fact that under its en-
larged powers it did other banking would not relieve it
from liability for the franchise tax imposed on the deposits
of savings banks, but it would not be liable for that tax if,
since the Act, it has conducted a general banking business
although it allows interest on deposit accounts of over six
months standing. State v. German Savings Bank, 103 Md.
197.

A savings bank which has a capital stock is subject to the
franchise tax imposed by the Code, Art. 81, sec. 86, on
"every savings bank, institution or corporation organized for
receiving deposits of money and paying interest thereon."
Fidelity Savings Bank of Frostburg v. State, 103 Md. 206.

Schedules of Personal Property. Every person whose
property, or some part thereof, has not been assessed, shall,
when required by the Collector of any county or the Appeal
Tax Court of Baltimore City, give to such Collector, or

146 Maryland Tax Digest.

Appeal Tax Court, a full and particular account of his per-
sonal property (in said county or city), and of all the per-
sonal property in his possession, or under his care and man-
agement, liable to be assessed, and which before that time
shall not have been assessed, and the name of the person to
whom it belongs. Code 1911, Art. 81, sec. 21.

If any person when required by the County Collector or
Appeal Tax Court, or after ten days' notice, neglect to
render the account required in section 21, he shall forfeit
a sum not exceeding one thousand dollars. County Collec-
tors or the Appeal Tax Court shall, on their knowledge,
and on the best information they can obtain, value the prop-
erty of such person to the utmost sum they believe the same
to be worth in cash, and the County Commissioners or the
Appeal Tax Court, shall assess such person so returned,
and the same shall be collected as the assessment. Code
1911, Art. 81, sec. 22.

Securities Assessed at Market Value. All bonds and
certificates of indebtedness made by any corporation and
owned by residents of this State shall be subject to assess-
ment and valuation at their market value for taxation to the
owner thereof in the county or city in which he may reside.
Act of 1896, Chap. 143.

Municipal taxes on corporate stock can be levied only upon
the valuation thereof by the State Tax Commissioner, the
municipality having no power to increase or diminish such
valuation. Clark Distilling Co. v. Cumberland, 95 Md. 471.

Maryland Tax Digest. 147

Taxes on corporate stock are not due by the corporation
but by the individuals who own the stock, the corporation
for the sake of convenience being made the agent of the
state and county to collect the tax, and being entitled to
charge the same against the stockholder. Baltimore v. Alle-
gany County, 99 Md. 5 ; Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. State,
87 Md. 696.

The property of a corporation cannot be levied on and
sold for taxes. Hull v. Southern Development Co., 89 Md. 9.

Securities Owned by Schools, Etc., not Exempt. The

railroad and other stocks owned by St. Mary's Seminary, the
income of which is used for the benefit of students, are not
exempt from taxation. Appeal Tax Court v. St. Peters
Academy, 50 Md. 347.

Shares of Stock and Other Corporate Property Sepa-
rate and Distinct. The most complete proof that the prop-
erty belonging to the corporation, and the shares in such
corporation in the hands of the holders of such shares, are
distinct and separate properties, is the conclusion reached by
the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of
Farrington v. Tennessee, 95 U. S. 687, that the property of
a corporation and the shares of a corporation may both be
taxed in the hands of the respective owners, by the state
in which said corporation has its situs, and in which also
such shareholders reside, and that such taxation is not
double. This ruling affirmed in Deiving v. Perdicaries, 96
U. S. 196; Appeal Tax Court v. Gill, 50 Md. 387.

148 Maryland Tax Digest.

Shares of Stock as Valued by State Tax Commission
Binding on Counties and Cities. Under the Code, Art.
81, sec. 141, as amended by the Act of 1896, Chap. 120, it is
made the duty of the State Tax Commissioner to furnish
to the County Commissioners of each county in which the
shareholders of a corporation reside, a statement of the
valuation put by him on the stock, and unless that valuation
is changed by the Comptroller of the State Treasury and
the Treasurer, the state, county and municipal taxes are
levied thereon. Sections 132 and 141 of the Act of 1896 dis-
tinctly declare that municipal taxes shall be levied upon
assessments made in pursuance of the provisions of Arti-
cle 81 of the Code. * * *

It consequently follows that the valuation of such shares
so made by the Tax Commissioner is the only valuation upon
which municipal taxes can be levied. * * This being so
it becomes the simple duty of the County Commissioners
and the several municipalities to place upon the assess-
ment books the valuations thus made, and to charge each
shareholder at that valuation with the number of shares
owned by him. Clark Distilling Co. v. Cumberland, 95
Md. 471.

Section 141 of the Act of 1896 requires that the share-
holders shall be asssessed with the shares so valued, though
the company is burdened with the duty to pay the tax, which
when paid, it is permitted to charge to the account of the
shareholder for whom it is paid. Ibid. {Hull v. South.
Dev. Co., 89 Md. 9; U.S. Elec P. & L. Co. v. State, 79 Md.
70; Am. Coal Co. v. Allegany Co., 59 Md. 197.)

Maryland Tax Digest. 149

A notice by the city to each shareholder is not necessary
and would be useless and nugatory if given. If each share-
holder were entitled to a notice, and a separate right of ap-
peal, it would be impossible to fix annually a valuation on
shares of capital. Ibid.

m

An entry of the names of shareholders and the number of
shares owned by each, grouped together under the name of
the corporation, is a sufficient compliance with the statute
requiring that shares be assessed against shareholders. Ibid.

Single Tax Declared to be Unconstitutional Because of
its Exemption of Personal Property. The Act of 1892,
Chap. 285, exempted from taxation all personal property in
Hyattsville, and empowered the Board of Commissioners
of that town to make such deductions or exceptions from,
and additions to, the assessment made by the assessors as
they may deem just, and to correct errors or illegal as-
sessments, and, after such deductions, to levy a tax upon
all the property remaining embraced therein, not exceeding
twenty-five cents per annum per hundred dollars of the
valuation thereof. The assessors valued the land at $369,709
and the buildings at $180,000. Personal property was not
assessed at all. After due notice the Board of Commis-
sioners struck from the assessment roll the entire valuation
on improvements and levied a tax of twenty-five cents on
the hundred dollars of the assessed value of the land. Sun-
dry taxpayers applied to the Circuit Court for a mandamus
to restore the valuation of the improvements, the mandamus
was denied and an appeal taken. It is not to be assumed

150 Maryland Tax Digest.

that the Legislature designed to confer upon this Board the
broad power to exempt all improvements. * * * The Decla-
ration of Rights, Article 15, provides that every person in
the State, or person holding property therein, ought to con-
tribute his proportion of public taxes for the support of the
government according to his actual worth in real or personal
property. The Act of 1892 attempted to disregard Article
15 of the Declaration of Rights, and to substitute an ex-
perimental, if not a visionary, scheme, which if suffered to
obtain a foothold, will inevitably lead to ruinous conse-
quences. * * The whole cost of conducting the municipal
government was attempted to be thrown exclusively on the
land. If the Legislature may lawfully do this in this par-
ticular instance of Hyattsville, it may do the same thing in
the case of a larger and more populous municipality, and in
every county. If the assessments on improvements and per-
sonal property be stricken from the books in the several
counties, and the taxes levied only upon the owners of land,
the burden would speedily become insufferable and land
would cease to be worth owning. * * * In our opinion
the Act of 1892 is null and void, because plainly unconsti-
tutional in its exemption of personal property from assess-
ment and taxation. Wells v. Hyattsville, 77 Md. 125.

Situs of Personal Property. The domicile of a testator
when living determines the situs of his personal property
of an intangible nature, not permanently located elsewhere,
for the purpose of taxation, and his place of domicile at the
time of his death determines the place of administering his
estate. Kinehart v. Howard, 90 Md. 5.

Maryland Tax Digest. 151

Shares of stock in Maryland corporations are personal
property belonging to the respective shareholders, and such
property, when owned by residents of this State can be made
liable to taxation only in the counties where the owners re-
side under Constitution, Art. 3, sec. 51, which declares that
personal property of residents in this State shall be subject
to taxation in the county or city where the resident resides
for the greater part of that year for which the tax may be
levied and not elsewhere except goods and chattels per-
manently located. Baltimore v. County Commissioners of
Allegany County, 99 Md. 1.

Special Taxes — Legislative Power. It is the settled law
of this State that the cost of the improvement of a street
may be assessed, in whole or in part, upon the property
binding upon the street. In the case of Hyattsville v. Smith,
105 Md. 318, the Court said there were two propositions
firmly fixed in the law of this State, namely, "that the Legis-
lature has the power of taxing particular districts for local
benefits or improvements ; and secondly, to authorize a
municipal corporations to open, grade, pave, kerb, etc. any
street or part of a street or to assess the cost of doing such
work on the property binding on such street or part thereof.
Bassett v. Ocean City, 118 Md. 120.

It has been repeatedly decided that the legislative act of
assigning districts for special taxation on the basis of bene-
fits cannot be attacked on the ground of error of judgment
regarding the special benefits and defeated by satisfying a
court that no special benefits are received. 2 Cooley on

152 Maryland Tax Digest.

Taxation p. 1208. Quoted by the Court in Bassett v. Ocean
City, 118 Md. 120.

The front foot rule of apportionment of the cost of im-
provements has been recognized and approved by this Court
in a number of cases. Baltimore v. Stewart, 92 Md. 535.
Also see Baltimore v. Ulman, 79 Md. 469.

It is conceded, on all sides, to be the province of the Legis-
lature to prescribe how the apportionment shall be made, and
this may be either by front foot, by the area of the fronting
lots, or by their value, including or excluding the building
of them. Occasional hardship may result from the adoption
of either mode, but the authorities are united in the conclu-
sion that either may lawfully be made the basis of apportion-
ment. Baltimore v. Johns Hopkins Hospital, 56 Md. 1.

State and Municipal Taxes. Code, Art. 81, sec. 1, in
regard to the levying of county and municipal taxes,
does not imply that State and local taxes shall be imposed on
the same basis. The arbitrary valuation adopted for con-
venience of collection, as the basis of State taxation, is not
designed to govern the local authorities, by which the tax
is imposed and collected in a different manner. Fireman's
Insurance Co. v. Baltimore, 23 Md. 312.

Code, Art. 81, sec. 1, manifestly contemplates the
levying of other assessments besides that provided for by
the Act of 189(1, Chap. 12. None of the sections of that
Article, nor the Act of 1896, confers authority upon a
municipality to levy taxes for local purposes, nor do they

Maryland Tax Digest. 153

provide the means of determining what town property shall
be burdened with municipal taxes. The Act of 1896 does
not repeal the mode of assessment provided by the charter
of Salisbury, nor the exemption from taxation contained
therein of judgments and private securities. Salisbury v.
Jackson, 89 Md. 521.

That the expression, "city and municipal taxation" is not
confined to Baltimore City alone may readily be seen by a
careful study of the provisions of Code, Art. 81, and
the amendments thereto. There are many places in them
where Baltimore City is named, thus showing that when
the Legislature meant it alone, it used the name of Balti-
more. Frederick County v. Frederick City, 88 Md. 659.

State Tax Commission. A legislative act of 1914 created
a State Tax Commission to take the place of the State Tax
Commissioner, that office being abolished. The specific
duties of the Commission are to equalize assessments
throughout the State of Maryland and to provide for the
review of all property for purposes of assessment at least
once in every five years. The Commission is given very
broad powers in the administration of the assessment and
tax laws of the State. It has "the final determination of as-
sessments of all property in the counties and cities of the
State." It has the power to establish units for the assess-
ment of all kinds of property, to investigate on its own
initiative, all assessments in the State, to have access to all
assessment and tax books, and to exercise generally all the
authority and to perform the duties heretofore incident to

154 Maryland Tax Digest.

the office of the State Tax Commissioner. In the case of
difference of opinion between the Tax Commission and the
tax authorities of any county or city "the determination of
the Commission shall prevail." Taxpayers may appeal
from local taxing bodies to the State Tax Commission upon
disputed matters of fact, but on questions of law appeals
must be made to the Courts (see Appendix for full text
of this Act).

State's Only Taxing Restraint. We are now consider-
ing the taxing power of the State. The only express pro-
hibition to be found in the Constitution of the United States
on this power, is that contained in the tenth section of the
first article by which the states are prohibited, unless with
the consent of Congress, from laying any imposts or duties
on imports or exports ; and are also, without such consent,
prohibited from imposing any duty on tonnage. This is
the only limitation upon the taxing power of the states to
be found in the Constitution of the United States, and it has
been asserted by very distinguished authority, and we think
correctly, that this revenue power, as it originally existed,
is subject to no other restraint. Hozvell v. State, 3 Gill, 25.

State's Policy in Assessing Real Estate. It is not

compatible with public convenience and the prompt col-
lection of revenue for the State to trace out all the sub-
divided or qualified interests that may be held in real estate*
and seek to hold the various owners responsible. Its policy
is to assess the fee simple value of land to the holder of the

Maryland Tax Digest. 155

possession, where its real owner is not apparent or accessi-
ble, leaving the parties interested to adjust the proportions
of liability between themselves. Hill v. Williams, 104 Md.
604. (Note — In the early history of Baltimore City dif-
ferent estates in land were separately assessed. See Re-
port of Tax Commissioner of 1888, Appendix P.
cxxxviii.)

Stock Exchange Seat not Taxable. A seat in the Bal-
timore Stock Exchange is not liable to valuation and assess-
ment and is not property within the meaning of that term
as used by the Bill of Rights. Baltimore v. Johnston, 96
Md. 747.

Stock Lists. State and National banks and other incor-
porated institutions shall, before the first day of March,
furnish to the County Commissioners and the Appeal Tax
Court, a list of their stockholders, with the residence of each
and the number of shares held by each, as of the first day
of January preceding; likewise a list of non-resident stock-
holders whose shares shall be valued in cash and the taxes
thereon collected from said corporations and taxes so paid
shall be a lien on the shares held by such stockholders. Code
1911, Art. 81, sec. 159.

In no case shall the stock of any corporation be valued at
less than the full value of the real estate and chattels, real
and personal belonging to such corporation whether the
shares are quoted on the market or not. Ibid.

15t> Maryland Tax Digest.

The Appeal Tax Court may require the stock list to be
verified by oath. Ibid.

At the time of riling the stock lists corporations must
furnish the County Commissioners or the Appeal Tax Court
a true statement of the real property owned by them, located
in the county or in Baltimore City, which shall be valued and
assessed by the County Commissioners or the Appeal Tax
Court, giving to the corporations duplicate certificates of
said valuations and assessments, to be transmitted by the
corporations to the State Tax Commission. Ibid.

Stock lists shall not be disclosed other than to a tax or
assessment official, or to parties having the right to demand
them. Officials violating this provision are subject to a
fine of from fifty to five hundred dollars. Code 1911, Art.
81, sec. 210.

"Street" Defined. A street shall be construed to mean
streets fully graded and paved. Act of 1902, Chap. 130.

Street Railway not a "Railroad" Within the Meaning
of the Law. In excepting the stock of railroad companies
from assessment under the Act of 1874, Chap. 483, Sec. 145,
the Legislature meant railroad companies worked by steam,
and this exception was made because the State had imposed
a tax upon the gross receipts of such companies in lieu of
other taxation. It was the duty of the Comptroller to assess
the shares of stock of street railway companies, and there
can be no question as to the power of the Tax Commis-

Maryland Tax Digest. 157

sioner to make such assessment. * * * It was the duty of
the street railway company to make and deliver to the Ap-
peal Tax Court, an account of the number of shares of stock
held by persons non-residents of the State, and to pay the
tax assessed on such stock, and charge the same to the
account of such non-resident stockholders. Baltimore v.
Baltimore City Passenger Railway Co., 57 Md. 35.

Suits Against Executors. "An executor may be sued
either in the county where he resides or where he obtains
administration." Code, Art. 75, sec. 88. Had appellant,
therefore, been sued in Baltimore County (where he lived)
his liability would still have been to the City of Baltimore
(where the administration was opened) for taxes. Bona-
parte v. State, 63 Mt. 473.

Tax Advertisements. The advertisement of a tax sale
is addressed to the public and should of itself contain suffi-
ciently definite terms of description to apprise the public
of the property to be sold, and any description by the notice
which informs the public of the property to be sold is suffi-
cient. It is the identity of the property and not the quality
of the estate which the advertisement must describe. Hill
v. Williams, 104 Md. 605 ; Reeside v. Peter, 33 Md. 120.

"Tax" and '■ Assessment. ' ' The distinction, if any, be-
tween a tax and an assessment, is not very palpable. The
meaning of the words is the same in our laws. Baltimore
v. Greenmount Cemetery, 7 Md. 534.

158 Maryland Tax Digest.

Tax Books Accessible to All. The tax books being pub-
lic records, are open and accessible sources of information
to all citizens. Bonaparte v. State, 63 Md. 470. (The
Code 1911, Art. 81, sec. 25, provides that County Commis-
sioners and the Appeal Tax Court shall record the valua-
tion of all properties in books "which any person may in-
spect without fee or reward.")

Tax Cases Decided Under the Act of 1841, Chap. 23—
Status of Bank Stock and Bank Property. Under the Act
of 1841, Chap. 23 (this is the Act that created the Appeal
Tax Court), the Appeal Tax Court of Baltimore valued and
assessed the capital stock of the Union Bank of Maryland,
and also its real property, including its banking house, fur-
niture and fixtures. This bank held, as proprietor, various
houses and lots other than its banking house. The stock
of the bank belonged in part to various persons not residents
of the State, but residents of other states, and of foreign
countries. Other portions of this stock belonged to various
citizens of the State, and to certain literary and charitable
institutions. From such assessment all the stockholders
respectively, and the Union Bank, appealed to this Court.
The capital stock of a large number of other corporations,
including banks, insurance companies, a railway company
and a manufacturing company, was also assessed, all of
whom "refused to be taxed by the Appeal Tax Court" and
from which refusal the State, in the name of the said Court,
appealed to the Court of Appeals. The record also showed
that George M. Gill appealed from an assessment of $7,000

Maryland Tax Digest. 159

of mortgages owned by him, which he claimed was exempt
from taxation because he owed a larger sum on mortgage,
and that under the Bill of Rights he could only be taxed
upon his actual worth, while in fact he was taxed on all his
real and personal property, including mortgages to him,
without deduction for the sum due by him on mortgage ; also
Charles F. Mayer appealed from an assessment on debts due
to him secured by mortgage of real property, without de-
duction for the sum due by him on mortgage, from which
he appealed. All the corporations and persons mentioned
joined in this appeal. * * *

The bank stock in the hands of stockholders was properly
taxed, but the Appeal Tax Court had no authority to tax
the real and personal property of the banks. Bank property,
being represented by the shares of stock, and the shares
cannot be taxed at the same time. Non-resident and resi-
dent shareholders are taxable alike on the number of shares
held by them. Tax Cases, 12 G. & J. 83.

The State had full power to grant the exemptions from
taxation set forth in the Act of 1841 ; also the exemptions
granted to the Baltimore and Susquehanna Railroad Com-
pany by the Act of 1827, Chap. 172, sec. 20; and to the
Philadelphia, Wilmington and Baltimore Railroad Company
by the Act of 1831 Chap. 296, sec. 19. Ibid.

The Act of 1821, Chap. 131, sees. 7 and 11, secures the
banks from additional tax for their franchise, but it does
not exempt individual shareholders or the property of banks.
Ibid.

160 Maryland Tax Digest.-

Though the stock of the Philadelphia, Wilmington and
Baltimore Railroad Company was exempted from taxation
by the Act of 1831, Chap. 296, sec. 19, the State reserved the
right to tax the works of the Company. The stock of the
Baltimore and Susquehanna Railroad Company is expressly
exempted by the Act of 1827, Chap. 72, sec. 20, but the
mortgage executed to the State cannot exempt the property
mortgaged from taxation in the hands of the Company mort-
gagor. Ibid.

The Farmers' and Merchants' Bank of Baltimore, being
the holder of its own capital stock, is not taxable thereon.
Ibid.

A mortgage in the hands of the mortgagee, though his
other property, including that which was mortgaged, is also
taxed, is liable to valuation and assessment, and the amount
which he owes cannot be deducted therefrom. Ibid.

Literary and charitable institutions, exempted under the
Act of 1841, are not taxable. Ibid. (Note. — For later
rulings on questions involved in this case see Wilkens v.
Baltimore, 103 Md. 293 ; Consolidated Gas Co. v. Baltimore,
101 Md. 541 ; Crown Cork and Seal Co. v. State, 87 Md.
687 ; Baltimore v. Canton Company, 63 Md. 218.

Tax Laws to be Construed Liberally. While there is a
great deal of loose and inexact phraseology employed in
many of the tax laws, it is not to be construed critically with
a view to defeat the enactments, but it must be interpreted
liberally so as to uphold them. Monticello Company v. Bal-
imore, 90 Md. 424.

Maryi^and Tax Digest. 161

Tax Limitation. The collection of taxes shall not be
enforced by law after the lapse of four years from the levy-
ing of same. Hebb v. Moore, (>6 iVTd. 167 ; Baldwin v. State,
89 Md. 587. Baltimore City Charter, sec. 843.

Tax Sales — Duties and Responsibilities of Collectors.

While the final ratification of a tax collector's sale by the
Circuit Court is prima facie evidence of the regularity of
the proceedings, it has no greater or other efficacy. It merely
relieves the purchaser of the onus of proof, and casts upon
the person attacking the sale the burden of showing any
irregularity ; but the validity of the sale still depends upon
there having been a substantial compliance with all the es-
sential requirements of the statute. Richardson v. Simpson,
82 Md. 159; Baumgardner v. Fowler, 82 Md. 631.

If the Collector should sell more land than is reasonably
sufficient to pay the taxes and charges thereon, where a
division is practicable, the sale will be set aside. Margraff
v. Cunningham, 57 Md. 587.

A Collector, under the Code, Art. 81, sec. 51, may levy
upon and sell real estate to satisfy such taxes, whether there
be personal property on the premises or not. Dyer v. Bos-
well, 3D Md. 465.

The sale of a farm of the value of twelve or fifteen hun-
dred dollars to satisfy a tax bill of one dollar and twenty-five
cents should be declared null and void. Dyer v. Boswell,
39 Md. 465.

162 Maryland Tax Digest.

Where the legality of a sale is disputed, a buyer of land at
a collector's sale must show that all the requirements of the
law have been complied with. Ibid.

A collector has no authority to sell for taxes until he has
made a levy; without the levy the sale is null. Duvall v.
Perkins, 77 Md. 587.

Compliance with all the requirements of the statute is
essential to the validity of a tax sale. Where it is shown
that the person upon whom the notice was alleged to have
been served was dead at the time the proceedings were
fatally defective. Benzinger v. Geis, 87 Md. 708.

The collector who sells the property must make the deed,
unless the Court orders his successor to make it. Otherwise
the sale is void. Taylor v. Forrest, 95 Md. 529. (The Act
of 1904, Chap. 261, validates the deed of the successor of
the collector who made the sale, and does not violate any of
the vested rights of the owner of the property. McMahon
v. Crean, 109 Md. 669.)

Tax Titles. A complete title passes to the purchaser of
property a( a tax sale, all previous liens and incumbrances
being extinguished. McMahon v. Crean, 109 Md. 652.

Deeds for property sold at a tax sale should be signed
either by the Collector who made the sale or his successor in
office. Act of 1904, Chap. 281.

The validity of a tax sale depends upon there having
been in the antecedent proceedings a proper compliance with

Maryland Tax Digest. 163

the requirements of the law. The order of a Circuit Court
ratifying a sale is only prima facie evidence of its regularity.
Richardson v. Simpson, 82 Md. 155.

Taxation of Property Owned by Non-Residents — Lia-
bility of Custodians of Distilled Spirits. Sections 214 to
224 of Article 81 of the Code of General Public Laws re-
quire that the custodian of distilled spirits shall pay for the
owner the taxes levied with reference to the property but
reserve a lien upon it as a means of reimbursement for the
payment. This legislation is claimed to be in violation of
Article 15 of the Declaration of Rights. The proposition
is that inasmuch as Article 15, as construed by this Court,
permits taxes to be levied in personam but not in rem, and as
the provisions in question have accordingly been held to
contemplate that taxation of the owner of the assessed com-
modity, therefore the requirement compelling the mere cus-
todian to pay such taxes, though allowing him a lien for his
protection, is not a valid exercise of the power of taxation
thus restricted and amounts to the taking of property with-
out due process of law. The validity of the statute in con-
troversy was sustained in Monticello Distilling Co. v. Balti-
more, 90 Md. 416; Fowble v. Kemp, 92 Md. 637; Carstairs
v. Cochran, 95 Md. 488 ; Hannis Distilling Co. v. Baltimore,
216 U. S. 285. In the last case cited the identical reason
now submitted for a reconsideration of the question was
presented and ruled insufficient. It was then held that as
the statute had been declared by this Court to be a valid
exercise of taxing power, and had been found in Carstairs

164 Maryland Tax Digest.

v. Cochran, 193 U. S. 10, not to be in conflict with the
Federal question, there was nothing in the case upon which
to base a Federal question, and the appeal was dismissed.
It would be difficult to conceive of a more effectual conclu-
sion of an issue. In the pleas it is alleged that the owners
of the distilled spirits are non-residents of "Maryland, and
consequently not liable to taxation by this State. If foreign
corporations were exempt "from the duty imposed generally
upon custodians of distilled spirits to pay the taxes owing
by the owner, the whole system of taxation with reference
to that class of property, would be deranged, and a large
proportion of the revenue to which this State is entitled
from that source would be rendered uncollectible. Hannis
Distilling Co. v. Baltimore, 111 Md. 678.

Taxes Due by a Trust Estate not Barred by the Statute
of Limitation. By request of parties interested, a trust
estate, which had been created by will, was brought into an
equity court and its supervision assumed by the Court. On
*M*arch 13th, 1876, the trustees sold certain real property
belonging to the estate. The deed was made to the pur-
chaser September 28th, 1877, the sale having been ratified
on May 4th, 1876. The property was to be conveyed free of
all taxes. In September, 1875, the City of Baltimore had
assessed the property for the grading, paving and kerbing
of an adjacent street. A bill for this assessment was de-
livered to one of the trustees in November, 1875, demanding
payment, and a thirty day notice was given in April, 1876.
But the taxes were withheld because a question of the

Maryland Tax Digest. 165

legality of the assessment had been raised. The purchaser,
being anxious to get possession of the property, proposed to
pay the purchase price, and to deposit with a banker a check
for the amount of taxes. This was agreed to, the purchase
price paid and the check deposited. The city was not a
party to this transaction, and made no effort to enforce its
claim until after four years had expired, when it brought
suit, asking that the amount of the assessment be paid out of
the check. The trustees plead the Statute of Limita-
tions. * * * *

The proof clearly shows that due notice was given to the
trustees of the charge on the property, and that due demand
was made, for payment of the assessment, within the time
prescribed by law. And such being the case, it became the
duty of the trustees, as well by the terms of the sale as by
the express terms of the Statute, to pay all assessments and
taxes binding on the property. With this knowledge and
duty on their part, the trustees received and held the amount
of money in question, applicable to the payment of the as-
sessment due, in trust for the city. Having so received the
money and set it apart for the express purpose, the trustees
cannot now be allowed to avoid their duty, and take advan-
tage of their own delay, by setting up the defense taken in
this case. Gould v. Baltimore, 58 Md. 52.

Taxes Due by Trustees not Barred by Limitation.

In the distribution of a trust estate all the taxes due must
be paid under sec. 63 of Art. 81 of the Code, which pro-
vides that "all sums due and arrears for taxes from the party

166 Maryland Tax Digest.

whose property is sold (at trustee's sale) shall be first paid
and satisfied." There is no exception. The only thing to
be known is that they are in arrear and unpaid. The four-
year Statute of Limitation provided for in the Act of 1874,
Chap. 483, sec. 82, does not apply to a trust estate. Hebb v.
Moore, 66 Md. 167.

Taxes in Arrears. Though under Code, Art. 81, sec.
72, taxes are not due and in arrears until the first day
of January succeeding their levy, they may be paid at any
time after they have been levied. Condon v. Maynard, 71
Md. 604.

The taxes must necessarily be due before payment can
be enforced. Ibid.

Taxes are not in arrears until the first day of January
next succeeding the date of their levy, and this suit, having
been brought in August, 1905, for taxes levied January 1st,
1905, cannot be maintained. Baltimore v. Chester River S.
Co., 103 Md. 411.

Under the order of an equity court certain real estate
having been sold in September, 1877, the State and county
taxes for that year are not allowed because they were not
due and in arrears until January, 1878. Wheeler v. Addi-
son, 54 Md. 41.

The taxes included in said levy (November) on real
estate or chattels real, and on all forms of personal property,
including shares of stock and other property, valued and

Maryland Tax Digest. 1G7

subject to valuation by the State Tax Commissioner, shall
be in arrears on the first day of July next ensuing the date
of their levy, and the taxes on all forms of property after
they become in arrears shall bear interest at the rate of six
per centum per annum. Act of 1914, amending sees. 167
and 171 of the Baltimore City Charter.

Taxes Paid in Error or Misapprehension of the Law Not
Refundable When no Injustice is Involved. This is an ap-
plication by the appellant against the appellees, to require
the latter to levy the sum of $40,100.41, to the use of the
former, for taxes alleged to have been erroneously levied
and paid. The supposed right to relief is founded upon the
Code, Art. 28, sec. 7, which provides that the County
Commissioners shall, ^when satisfied that any error has
arisen by assessing property not liable to be assessed, rectify
such error and levy and pay to the proper person any money
that may have been paid in consequence of such error." By
the local law of Allegany County, it was provided that the
"incorporated institutions and companies of Allegany Coun-
ty, whether they have or have not declared any dividend
or earned any profits, shall pay the State and County taxes
levied upon the assessed value of their capital stock, held by
stockholders, residents or non-residents of said county ; but
the holders of said stock shall not be liable to taxation upon
the stock held by them." Under this provision of the local
statute, and without supposing that the same had been re-
pealed by either the general assessment Act of 1866, or that
of 1876, the capital stock of the appellant was assessed by the

168 Maryland Tax Digest.

assessors, appointed under the general assessment Act, in
pursuance of the local law, instead of the general assess-
ment law ; and the appellant paid the taxes on such capital
stock so assessed, from 1867 to 1878, inclusive. But in 1880
this Court decided that the provisions of the local law had
been repealed by the provisions of the general assessment
Act of 1866. By the Act of 1866 and the Act of 1876, the
shares of the capital stock of all corporations, liable to tax-
ation, were directed to be assessed to the resident holders
of such stock in the city or county where the holders re-
sided. * * *

It is a well settled principle, that if a party through some
mistake, misapprehension, or foregetfulness, of facts, re-
ceives money to which he is not justly and legally entitled,
and which he ought not to retain, the law regards him as the
receiver and holder of the money for the use of the lawful
owner of it, and raises an implied promise on his part to
pay over the amount to such owner; and if the money be
withheld from the owner, an action for money had and re-
ceived may be maintained. Kelley v. Solari, 9 "M*. & W. 54 ;
R. R. Co. v. Faunce, 6 Gill, 69, 77. * * * * *

But, conceding that action for money had and received
to lie for taxes paid under a mistake of fact it is insisted
that no such action could be maintained for the recovery of
the money claimed in this case, because here the taxes were
paid under a mistake of law. And it is certainly true, as a
general principle, according to the decisions of this Court,
that where taxes have been paid under a mistake of law,

Maryland Tax Digest. 169

they cannot be recovered back in an action at law. Balti-
more v. Lefferman, 4 Gill, 431 ; Lester v. Baltimore, 29 Md.
41 *i

When County Commissioners are satisfied that a mistake
has been made in assessing property which is not assessable
it is their duty to refund the taxes thus erroneously received
and under the Code, Art. 28, sec. 7, it would make no dif-
ference as to whether the taxes were paid under a mistake
of law or a mistake of fact. *****

As we have already stated, the stock of the appellant was
not assessed and made liable to taxation in any other part
of the State for county or city purposes, from 1866 to 1879.
The stockholders of the appellant were equally liable to as-
sessment as the stockholders of any of the other corporations
in other parts of the State ; and, therefore, under the cir-
cumstances of the case, there is no very persuasive equity
in favor of the application. It is simply the case of a party
paying taxes on its property to the authorities of one
locality, by mutual mistake or misapprehension of the law,
when that property could, and should, have been assessed
and made liable to taxation in different localities of the
State, but from which it escaped by reason of such mutual
mistake of the parties concerned. George's Creek Coal &
Iron Co. v. Allegany County, 59 Md. 260.

Taxes Voluntarily Paid Cannot be Recovered. This is
an action of assumpsit brought by the appellee to recover the
amount of taxes erroneously paid the appellant by her for

170 , Maryland Tax Digest.

the years 1907 and 1908. Plaintiff was the owner of prop-
erty in the Annex to Baltimore City against which she
had received a tax bill at the full city rate for the above
two years, which she paid. Subsequently the Circuit Court
decided, in another case, that property located in the same
block as that of the appellee was only taxable for those two
years at the sixty cent rate. The Appeal Tax Court refused
to refund the amount overpaid and the appellee herein
brought suit for recovery. There was a verdict in her favor
and the City of Baltimore appealed. It is admitted by the
appellee that it is a recognized general rule of law that taxes
voluntarily paid under a mistake of law cannot be recovered
back, but it is contended that there are certain exceptions.
One of the exceptions relied upon is thus stated in brief :
"Where there was no legal or moral obligation to pay and
the recipient has no right in good conscience to restrain."
Conceding that such an exception may exist in some cases,
it has never been applied in this State to suits brought to
recover taxes paid under a mistake of law. Another ex-
ception is "Where the law is doubtful," as was held by this
Court in Lester v. Baltimore, 29 Md. 415. * * *

It is claimed for the appellee that, "Ordinance No. 88,
approved June 27th, 1973, codified under Art. 38, sec. 5,
City Code 1906, does give her the right to recover the ex-
cess which she paid. Without some express authority given
by the statute we are not prepared to say that a municipality
can by ordinance change the common law of the State to
such an extent as is claimed here. * * The probabilities are
that the ordinance was intended to authorize the Appeal

Maryland Tax Digest. 171

Tax Court to correct errors and refund money paid under a
mistake of fact, but, however that may be, we are of the
opinion that it does not authorize an action under such facts
and circumstances as exist in this case. * *

Inasmuch as owners of property in the Annex have full
opportunity to have such questions determined in advance
they ought not be encouraged to adopt the course the appellee
has pursued, and then, if some other person succeeds in hav-
ing the increase declared illegal, subject the city to a suit
to recover the money back, even if that could be done, which
we are of the opinion could not be done, under existing laws.
It would necessarily cause much confusion if it was author-
ized and might work a great hardship on other taxpayers to
have a large number of owners of property pay their taxes
year after year and then finally sue the city. * * When a
party pays the tax without resorting to his remedy under the
Statute or in equity he cannot recover it back as a general
rule, and this case furnishes no exception to that rule. Balti-
more v. Harvey, 118 Md. 275.

It is now established by an unbroken series of adjudica-
tions in the English and American Courts that where money
is voluntarily and fairly paid, with a full knowledge of the
facts and circumstances, it cannot be recovered back in a
Court of law, upon the ground that the payment was made
under a misapprehension of the legal rights and obligations
of the party. Baltimore v. Lefferman, 4 Gill, 425 ; also Mor-
ris v. Baltimore, 5 Gill, 244.

172 Maryland Tax Digest.

a

There are many doubtful questions of law. When they
arise, the party of whom the claim is made, has an option
either to litigate the question or submit to the demand and
pay the money. But it would be both mischievous and un-
just if he, who has acquiesced in the right by voluntary pay-
ment, should be at liberty at any time within the Statute
of Limitations to rip up the matter and recover back the
money. The plaintiff in this case (an action of assumpsit
to recover back money paid for a tax assessed his lot which,
in Baltimore v. Porter, 18 Md. 284, had been held to be il-
legal) having failed to avail himself of a legal remedy for
his protection must abide by his election. Lester v. Balti-
more, 29 Md. 415.

It is certainly true, as a general principle, according to
the decisions of this Court, that where taxes have been paid
under a mistake of law, they cannot be recovered back in an
action at law. G. C. Coal & Iron Co. v. Allegany County,
59 Md. 255.

Taxing Power of Counties. Counties have "no inherent
power of taxation." What power they exercise must be
delegated to them by the Legislature, subject to every con-
stitutional limitation to which the taxing power of he Legis-
lature is subject. Baltimore & E. S. R. R. Co. v. Spring,
80 Md. 517; St. Mary's Ind. School v. Brown. 45 Md. 333.

The Act of 1888 Annexing Certain Territory to Balti-
more City Not a Contract. By an Act passed at the Jan-
uary session of the Legislature of 1888, provision was made

Maryland Tax Digest. 173

for annexing to the City of Baltimore part of the territory
then within the limits of Baltimore County. By sec. 19 of
the Act of 1888, it is enacted that until after the year 1900
the property situated in the annexed districts should remain
assessed at the valuation fixed by the Baltimore County
authorities and that the owners of that property should only
be charged at the rate of sixty cents on the $100. The same
section further provides that from and after the year 1900
"the property, real and personal, in the said territory so
annexed, shall be liable to taxation and assessment there-
for, in the same manner and form as similar property with-
in the present limits of the said city may be liable; provided,
however, that after the year 1900, the present county rate
of taxation shall not be increased for city purposes on any
landed property within the said territory, until avenues,
streets or alleys shall have been opened and constructed
through the same, nor until there shall be upon every block
of ground so to be formed, at least six dwellings or store
houses ready for occupation. * * * * *

The validity of this statute was assailed on various
grounds but in Daly v. Morgan, 69 Md. 460, it was fully and
finally upheld. At the legislative session of 1902, an Act
was passed that defined the terms used in the original Act
of 1888 and this is the statute which is now attacked as un-
contsitutional and void. By this last mentioned Act landed
property was defined to mean "real estate," whether in fee
simple or leasehold, and whether improved or unimproved ;
"until avenues, streets, or alleys shall have been opened and
constructed," shall be construed to mean until avenues.

174 Maryland Tax Digest.

streets or alleys, shall have been opened graded, kerbed or
otherwise improved from kerb to kerb by a pavement, maca-
dam, gravel or other substantial material ; the words "ave-
nues," "streets," and "alleys," being herein used interchange-
ably ; "block of ground," shall be construed to mean an area
of ground not exceeding two hundred thousand superficial
square feet formed and bounded on all sides by intersecting
avenues, streets, or alleys, opened, graded, kerbed and other-
wise improved from kerb to kerb by pavement, macadam,
gravel or other substantial material as above." *****

The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore treating the
Act of 1902 as invalid, proceeded to levy against the ap-
pellant and others living in the belt and similarly situated,
the current city rate, whereupon the pending bill was filed
to restrain the levy and collection of that tax. The sole
ground upon which its validity is questioned is that it im-
pairs the obligation of the contract supposed to be involved
in the Act of 1888. We have no difficulty in holding that
the Act of 1888 neither evidences or contains the constituents
of a contract. The purpose of the Act was to enlarge the
municipal limits of the City of Baltimore. The provision
regulating the rate of taxation was merely the exercising by
the General Assembly of its undoubted authority over the
subject of taxation. It conferred upon the City of Balti-
more the power to tax individuals who prior to its passage
had not been within its taxing jurisdiction, but the granting
of that power to the municipality was not the grant of pri-
vate property, nor the creation of a vested right, much less
was it a contract. The authority given to the city to tax

Maryland Tax Digkst. 175

the inhabitants in the belt was a governmental power that
was conferred, and like every other similar power conferred
upon a municipality, was subject to the control of the Gen-
eral Assembly. The Maryland cases fully sustain this propo-
sition. State v.B.& O R. R. Co. 12 G. & J. 437. The fact
that the majority of the voters in two of the districts voted
in favor of annexation does not convert the Act of 1888
into a contract. * * * *

A court of equity has undoubted jurisdiction to restrain
the levy and collection of a tax attempted to be levied ille-
gally. Remedy there must be in some form, for so serious
a wrong could not be permitted to go unredressed. It is in-
sisted that the appellant could, by a timely appeal to the
Baltimore City Court, have obtained complete relief and
therefore that equity was without jurisdiction to aid him.
We cannot accept that view. We concur in the conclusion
reached by the Judge below that the Act of 1888 does not
constitute a contract, but we differ from the view he took to
the effect that equity was powerless to intervene in such a
case as this record presents. Joesting v. Baltimore, 97 Md.
594.

The Thirty Cents Local and Fifteen Cents State Tax on
Securities. Bonds and other evidences of debt issued by
any corporation incorporated in or out of the State, or by
any state except Maryland, and shares in any bank other
than a National bank, owned by residents of this State shall
be assessed for municipal and county purposes at their mar-
ket value, at the rate of thirty cents on the one hundred

176 Maryland Tax Digest.

dollars. Those upon which no dividend shall be paid shall
not be valued at all. Code 1911, Art. 81, sec. 214. For
State purposes dividend paving shares shall be assessed at
fifteen cents on the hundred dollars. Act of 1914, Chap.
411. See Appendix for full text of Act.

The Code, Art. 81, sec. 214, leaves no doubt as to the
county or municipal purposes on these securities. Nor can
there be any question as to the amount of tax that can be
levied in addition to the State tax, as the law says there shall
be paid on such valuation thirty cents (and no more) on each
one hundred dollars for county and municipal taxation.
There is an express prohibition against exacting a greater
amount than thirty cents. Courts have nothing to do with
the wisdom of such provisions as long as they do not con-
flict with the law. Frederick County v. Frederick City,
88 Md. 656.

(For other Maryland decisions involving the thirty-cent
security tax Act, see Baltimore v. Johnson. 5)6 Md. 745;
Consolidated Gas Company v. Baltimore, 101 Md. 556;
J3ank of Baltimore, v. Baltimore, 92 Fed. 239, affirmed in 100
Fed. 24; Consolidated Gas Company v. Baltimore, 105 Md.
50; Baltimore v. State, 105 Md. 1, 11; Schley v. Mont-
gomery County, 106 M*d. 410 ; Musgrove v. B. & O. R. R.
Co., Ill Md. 639. In none of these was the constitutionality
of the Act questioned.)

The Poll Tax Declared to be "Grievous and Burden-
some" in the Declaration of Rights — History Thereof.

Maryland Tax Digest. 177

Is compulsory labor imposed upon persons residing in the
several election districts of a county for the purpose of
keeping the roads in repair, with the privilege of providing
a substitute, or the payment of a stipulated sum in lieu of
such personal service, a "levying of taxes by the poll," with-
in the meaning of the Constitution ? Such compulsory labor
is beyond question a burden on the persons upon whom it is
imposed ; and though it assumes the form of labor, it may
be fairly considered, in the nature of a tax. At the same
time, when this article in the Bill of Rights is construed in
the light of the legislation in regard to levying taxes by the
poll in force when the Constitution of 1776 was adopted ; and
in the light of the legislation in regard to compulsory labor on
the public roads, also in force at that time, and which has
continued in force down to the present, it is clear that com-
pulsory labor for the purpose of keeping the roads in re-
pair has never been considered as a poll tax, prohibited by
the Constitution. A brief reference to the legislation in
force when the Constitution of 1776 was adopted will clearly
show the nature and character of poll taxes, the levying of
which was declared to be grievous and oppressive, and ought
to be abolished. If we turn to the Act of 1715, Chap. 15,
we find that all persons, male and females, free and slave,
above the age of sixteen years are declared to be ((taxables/'
and upon each person thus declared to be a taxable, the com-
missioners of the several county courts were directed to levy
a specific sum, to be paid in money or tobacco, for the sup-
port of the Government. And this Act, providing for the
levying of taxes by the poll, continued in force down to the

178 Maryland Tax Digest.

Revolution. Strange as it may seem nowadays, the poll
taxes, to which we have referred, were the only direct taxes
levied for public purposes during the colonial period. Such
taxes thus levied, without reference to the ability or the
means of the "taxable" to pay them, must necessarily have
been, in many cases, burdensome and oppressive, and it
was such levying of taxes by the poll that the Constitution
of 1776 denounced as being "grievous and oppressive," and
which ought to be "abolished" Short v. State, 80 Md. 398.

Time at Which Corporate Real Estate May be Assessed —
Degree of Completion of Building Required by Law.

This is an appeal from an order of the Baltimore City Court
dismissing a petition filed by the appellant which sought to
have the assessment of its dry dock ($200,000) stricken from
the tax books. The assessment was made on the fith of
January by the Appeal Tax Court after a hearing on Decem-
ber 23d. Appellants contended that the assessment was il-
legal because it was made after the first day of October
(City Charter, sec. 171). The first day of October is the
day on which the tax books are expected to be ready for the1
ensuing year. But Section 171 also provides that property
which has "escaped" or been "omitted" shall be valued and
assessed after the first of October "whenever the same may
be discovered." It is desirable and important that as far as
possible the assessable basis be known and determined by
the day contemplated by the charter. But if there be prop-
erty which is taxable, but is not on the assessment books
on that day, it ought not to escape taxation merely because

Maryland Tax Digest. 179

it had not been reported by the owner, or had been over-
looked by the tax officers. Assuming that this dock was in
a condition that made it taxable on October 1st, we think
it is clear that the Appeal Tax Court was right in assessing
it. Skinner Dry Dock Co. v. Baltimore, 96 Md. 39.

The dock was practically completed on October 1st with
the exception of the gate and some dredging which was
necessary to be done before using it. If it was not assessable
at that time by reason of what was yet to be done, then it
would be a great temptation for property owners to postpone
making some small part of the improvement until after Oc-
tober 1st. These taxes were for 1902, and for some weeks
before the beginning of that year the dock was in actual use.
Indeed, with the exception of the gate, the dock proper was
apparently complete before the 1st of October. In our
opinion the dock was substantially completed or so nearly so
as to make it a subject for taxation on October 1st. Ibid.

In addition to this view, corporations are required, under
Code, Art. 81, sec. 141, to furnish to the County Com-
missioners or Appeal Tax Court, before the first day of
March, a true statement of their real property, as of January
1st "and such real property shall be valued and assessed by
said County Commissioners and Appeal Tax Court respec-
tively to the" Company, the State Tax Commissioner then
assessing the shares of stock as provided for by law. Such
being the law applicable to corporations, how could the ap-
pellant escape taxation on this dry dock for 1902, even if it
is conceded that it was not in a condition on October 1st to

180 Maryland Tax Digest.

be taxed ? It could .then have been valued and assessed by
the Appeal Tax Court, if not previously assessed, for if that
were not so a corporation could readily avoid the payment
of taxes which it justly owed. Under Code, Art. 81,
sec. 141 , improvements completed before January 1st on the
real estate of corporations in Baltimore City are taxable
for the ensuing year, though not assessed to the corpora-
tion on October 1st of the preceding year. Ibid.

Time of Assessment of the Shares of Domestic Corpora-
tions as of January 1st. Section 150, of Article 81, of
the Code, requires every state corporation to report to the
State Tax Commissioner by the 15th of March in each year
a correct statement of the number of shares of capital stock
in such corporation, and the par value of each share with
such information in regard to the value of the same as
may be in possession of the officers of the corporation as of
the 1st day of January, and the Commissioner shall by the
15th of May assess the shares as of the 1st of January pre-
ceeding and levy the State tax thereon. The State Tax
Commissioner shall before the 1st of March furnish to the
County Commissioners and the Appeal Tax Court of Balti-
more City a list of the stockholders residing in their respec-
tive districts and the number of shares owned by each. It
is also provided that the State Tax Commissioner shall cer-
tify his valuations to the tax officials of the various coun-
ties and cities in the State. The provisions of Article 81
leave no doubt that the shares of stock in all Maryland
corporations are assessable to the persons who owned the

Maryland Tax Digest. 181

shares on January 1st, and that the information which said
Article requires from the officers of corporations must re-
late to the ownership of each share as of January 1st. In
this case a number of shares that were owned by non-resi-
dents on January 1, 1905, were transferred to a corporation
in Queen Anne's County; these shares were properly as-
sessed and were payable in Baltimore O'ty for that year.
Baltimore v. Chester River Steamboat Company, 103 Md.
408.

True Test of Taxable Value. The difference between a
security that produces interest and one that does not, and
the reason for the taxation of the one and the exemption of
the other, are both clear and obvious. The true test of a
taxable value is the producing value to the owner. Simpson
v. Hopkins, 82 Md. 490.

Trust Estates Must be Assessed at Residence of Bene-
ficial Owner. The Safe Deposit & Trust Company had
in its posession securities to the value of $28,890 in trust for
Noah Walker, a resident of Baltimore County, and $22,930
in trust for Emily R. Hoff, also a resident of Baltimore
County, against both of which assessments were levied by the
Appeal Tax Court of Baltimore. The appellee protested
upon the ground that under the Act of 1902, Chap. 486, it
was taxable in Baltimore County. An appeal was taken
to the City Court and the assessment was abated, whereupon
the Appeal Tax Court appealed. The appellant contended
that the Act of 1890 conflicted with Article 15 of the Bill

>

182 Maryland Tax Digest.

of Rights. Held that the Legislature did not exceed its
power over the subject of taxation or violate any of the
provisions of the Bill of Rights or Constitution in providing
that personal property of the kind involved in this case,
shall for purposes of assessment and taxation, be treated as
belonging to the substantial owners and not to its technical
holder. Baltimore v. Safe Deposit & Trust Company, 97
Md. 664.

When the personal property held in trust consists of shares
of stock in corporations of this State the Act of 1902, Chap.
406, being in pari materia with the existing law requiring the
corporation to pay the taxes on its stock for the stockholder,
fhe two laws should be construed together, and the residence
of the cestui que trust be treated as the situs for taxation,
and the taxes be paid by the corporation in accordance with
the system in force for the payment of such taxes. Ibid.

Trustee for Creditors. A trustee for creditors is re-
quired to pay by way of preference only the taxes due on
the property of the debtor taken possession of or sold by
him, and not all taxes due by the debtor, or taxes on property
which he does not accept for the estate. Parlett v. Dugan, 85
Md. 407.

Turnpikes as Boundaries. A turnpike may be used as a
boundary in the reclassification of property in the Annex
$or taxation purposes. Coulston v. Baltimore, 109 Md. 271.

Turnpikes as Public Streets. Turnpikes upon which
property in the Annex fronts, on which no tolls are paid in

Maryland Tax Digest. 183

passing from such property to the old city limits, are to be
considered as public streets. Baltimore v. Knell, 111 Md.
583.

Trustees Living in Different Counties. In this case prop-
erty was held by two trustees, one living in Baltimore
City and one in Baltimore County. This Court, in Latrobe
v. Baltimore, 19 Md. 13, settled the doctrine that the resi-
dence of the trustee is the situs for taxation upon property.
The tax laws of the State do not expressly provide for such
a case as this, and our decision must be made to rest upon
what we regard to be equity and right. The property is
certainly not liable to a double tax. We think it should be
taxed, one-half as of the place of residence of each trustee,
that is one-half should be taxed to the trustee in Baltimore
City and one-half to the trustee in Baltimore County. Balti-
more v. Stirling, 29 Md. 49.

Unissued Shares of Stock not Liable to Assessment.

The Consumers' Ice Company was assessed by the State
Tax Commissioner on its capital stock of 4,000 shares,
though the Company informed him that only 3,277 shares
had been issued. * * When the statute directs the Tax
Commissioner to "assess for state purposes the shares of
capital stock in all incorporated institutions or companies"
it evidently means shares of stock that are in existence. If
they have no existence they have no value. Those that are
already issued may possibly have some additional value
given them by reason of the fact that o.thers can be issued,

184 Maryland Tax Digest.

but that can be taken into consideration when the former
are assessed. The State can lose nothing by this construc-
tion.. The State Tax Commissioner had no authority to as-
sess the 723 shares of this company which had not been
issued. Consumers' Ice Co. v. State, 82 Md. 132.

Vessel Assessments. All interests, shares or proportions
owned by residents of this State in all ships or other vessels
whether such ships or other vessels be in or out of port are
and shall be valued and assessed for the purpose of State,
county and municipal taxation to the respective owners
thereof, in the county or city in the State in which said
owners may, respectively, reside, and such respective owners
shall pay the taxes thereon. Code 1911, Art. 81, sec. 2.

The interest of a citizen of Maryland and resident of
Baltimore in a vessel engaged in foreign commerce regis-
tered, as a vessel of the United States, Baltimore being the
home port of the vessel and the domicile of its directing and
managing owners, is taxable by the municipality. Such tax
is not in conflict with the Federal Constitution. Gunther v.
Baltimore, 55 Md. 458; Howell v. State, 3 Gill, 16; Hooper
v. Baltimore, 12 Md. 471.

A vessel has no situs apart from the domicile of the owner.
Hooper v. Baltimore, 12 Md. 464.

The situs of "floating property," like rolling stock, etc., is
at the residence of the owners. Hopkins v. Baker, 78 Md.
371.

Maryiand Tax Digest. 185

Vessels enrolled in New York and engaged in inter-com-
merce, but permanently in Virginia, are taxable in Virginia.
Old Dominion S. S. Co. v. Virginia, 198 U. S. 299.

The registration district of which Baltimore is the port of
entry is not, under the laws of Congress, limited to Baltimore
City, and the mere fact that the vessel is registered in the
Baltimore custom house does not give the city the right to
tax her. Hooper v. Baltimore, 2 Md. 472.

The Act of 1841, Chap. 23, taxing all ships and other ves-
sels "whether in or out of port" was a valid and constitu-
tional exercise of power by the State. Howell v. State, 3
Gill, 10.

4141, Revised Statutes, U. S., 1792, prescribes the duty of
registry "by the collector of that collection district which
includes the port to which such vessel shall belong at the
time of her registry."

Vessels are taxable at the place of registry. See Morgan
v. Parham 16 Wall, 472.

When the owner (of a vessel) is domiciled without the
State and the property is in the possession, or in the custody
and control of an agent or other person within the State
it becomes taxable at the domicile of the person having
possession thereof. Welty on Assessment, sec. 43.

The taxable situs of ships at sea is at the residence of the
owner. Thompson on Corporations, sec. 8096.

186 Maryland Tax Digest.

United Railways Park Tax a Substitute for Taxation
on Easement in Public Streets. The principal question
presented by this appeal is whether the street easements used
and occupied by the appellant in the City of Baltimore are
subject to valuation and assessment by the Appeal tax Court
of that city, for the purposes of taxation, under the ex-
isting laws of this State. * * The appellant contends that
the tax of nine per cent, on its gross receipts imposed by the
Act of 1892, Chap. 279, is in lieu of and substitution for any
other tax on its intangible property, whether it be termed
franchise or easement. * * * *

What appellant claims is not exemption but exoneration.
It does not contend that the State has surrendered its right
to further tax the easements in question, but having taxed
them in the manner prescribed in the Act of 1882, further
legislative action is necessary before an additional burden of
taxation can be lawfully imposed upon them. * * When we
reflect that such tax reaches every nook and corner of value
in the easements as well as in the franchises of the cor-
poration ; that the amount of the tax is equivalent to a direct
property tax on an assessment of over $20,000,000; that
there could have scarcely been a thought in the legislative
mind at that time (1882) of taking the easement separately
as property distinguished from the franchise, and that in
fact no effort was made to tax easements for a period of
twenty-five years thereafter, we think the inference is irre-
sistible that the Legislature did not then contemplate a tax
on the easements enjoyed by the street car companies now

Maryland Tax Digest. 187

composing the appellant, in addition to the gross receipts
tax which by that Act it imposed upon them. * * * *

We hold, therefore, that as to the easements enjoyed by
the appellant upon which the park tax is earned and paid, no
further assessment thereon for the purpose of taxation can
be lawfully made without express legislative authority, and
that consequently the assessment of them by the Appeal Tax
Court is illegal and void. As to the fourteen miles of ease-
ments of appellant in the City of Baltimore located on turn-
pikes and private ways, and upon which no gross receipts
tax is paid, we think these are subject to taxation by the Ap-
peal Tax Court. United Railways Co. v. Baltimore, 111
Md. 264.

Validity of a Verbal Order of County Commissioners
to the Collector to Pay a Sum of Money. The Commis-
sioners of Charles County passed a verbal order instructing
the Collector to pay a sum of money to a claimant, and
though the clerk to the Commissioners failed to make an
entry of the order, he directed the Collector to pay the
money ; the failure to make a proper entry on the records did
not invalidate the order. When the Collector, under such cir-
cumstances, failed to pay the money as directed, but mis-
appropriated it, the sureties on his bond are liable for
the amount. Fidelity and Deposit Co. v. Co. Com'rs. Charles
County, 98 Md. 162.

Valuation of Shares by Tax Commissioner Final.
The decision of the Board of Appeal in reviewing the

188 Maryiand Tax Digest.

valuation of the shares of stock by the State Tax Commis-
sioner is final as to the question of valuation. Even if there
was error in the valuation the Courts cannot interfere un-
less it is shown that the property assessed is exempt under
the statute. Salisbury Building Asso. v. Wicomico County,
86 Md. 615.

Ward's Property in Possession of Foreign Guardian.

Personal property belonging to a ward, which is in posses-
sion of a guardian residing in the District of Columbia,
though her husband may have a residence in this State, is
not taxable in this State. Kinehart v. Howard, 90 M'd. 1.

Western Maryland R. R. Rolling Stock Assessable in
Baltimore. As to the assessment of the rolling stock of the
Western Maryland Railroad, such as engines, cars, etc., and
also the tracks within the eighth ward of Baltimore City, we
think there was no error in the assessment with respect to the
locality of this property. It is contended by the Company
that it is entitled to exemption from assessment, in the City
of Baltimore, in respect to at least a part of its rolling stock;
that such rolling stock should be treated as part of the road,
and its value distributed, pro rata in the assessments, along
its entire line. But in this we do not agree. It is conceded
that the principal business office and also the principal sta-
tion of the Company are located in the eighth ward of the
city, and that must be taken as the place of the domicile of
the Company for purposes of taxation. Whether we re-
gard such rolling stock as belonging to one species of prop-

Maryland Tax Digest. 189

erty or the other (real or personal), the entire road being
within the limits of the State, the only practical place for as-
sessment, in the absence of some positive rule of distribution
and apportionment prescribed by the Legislature, is the place
of the domicile of the Company. Burroughs on Taxation,
186, and the cases there cited. Appeal Tax Court v. W. M.
R. R. Co., 50 Md. 274.

The Western Maryland R. R. Co. is held to be the sub-
stantial owner of the leasehold interest in real estate, which
it possesses and uses under an ordinance of Baltimore City
providing for a formal lease of such property for ninety-
nine years, said lease not having been executed, though the
city was willing to execute it, and assessable for the value
of the leasehold. Ibid.

APPENDIX

THE STATE TAX COMMISSION

AN ACT TO EQUALIZE ASSESSMENTS
THROUGHOUT MARYLAND.

ACT OF 1914, CHAPTER 841.

AN ACT to create a State Tax Commission to provide for
the equalization of assessments throughout the State of
Maryland, and to provide for the review of all property
for purposes of assessment at least once in every five
years ; to define the duties and other powers of the State
Tax Commission ; to provide for procedure and appeals
in cases affecting taxation ; to provide for the appoint-
ment of a supervisor of assessments in each County and
the City of Baltimore ; to provide for the payment of
the salary of the supervisor of each County and Balti-
more City; and to provide for the abolishing of the
office of State Tax Commissioner, and to substitute the
State Tax Commission for the State Tax Commissioner,
and to appropriate a sum of money annually to pay the
salaries and expenses of the State Tax Commission by
adding twelve Sections to Article 81, title "Taxation/*
of the Code of Public General Laws, as set out in the
Code of 1912.

Section 1. Be it enacted bv the General Assembly of
Maryland, That Article 81, title~"Taxation," of the Code of
Public General Laws as set out in the Code of 1912, be and
the same is hereby amended by adding twelve Sections to
immediately follow Section 232, and to be known as Sections

192 Appendix

233, 234, 235 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243 and
244, and to be as follows :

Sec. 233. There is hereby created a Commission to be
designated as State Tax Commission of Maryland composed
of three persons who shall be resident taxpayers of the State
and qualified voters thereof and not more than two of whom
shall be of the same political party. One of said Com-
missioners shall be a resident of the City of Baltimore, one
a resident of the Counties of the Eastern Shore of Maryland,
and the other a resident of the Counties of the Western
Shore of Maryland. The term of each of the three members
shall be six years and until his successor qualifies and shall
commence on the first "Monday of June next ensuing his
appointment; except that one of the Commissioners named
in this Act shall serve for two vears, one for four vears,
and one for six years, and if for any reason the term of
six years shall be held unconstitutional then the term of each
shall be two years. The present Commission created by this
Act shall be Oscar Leser, who shall serve for two years,
Lewin W. Wickes, who shall serve for four years, and Ar-
thur P. Gorman, Jr., who shall serve for six years and who
shall be Chairman of said Commission during his term,
after which time the chairman of said Commision shall be
designated by the Governor of the State, and all subsequent
appointments shall be so made that not more than two Com-
missioners shall at any time be of the same political party.
Each Commissioner shall receive a salary of Three Thous-
and dollars ($3,000) per annum, payable, out of the State
Treasury by the State of Maryland. The Chairman of said
Commission shall also receive the sum of Three Thousand
Dollars per annum which shall be paid out of its funds by
the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, to said Chairman
of said Commission, as an employee of said municipal cor-
poration ; and each of the other two Commissioners shall
receive in addition to said Three Thousand Dollars per
annum aforesaid the sum of Two Thousand Dollars per
annum which shall be paid out of its funds by the Mayor
and City Council of Baltimore to each of said other two
Commissioners as employees of said municipal corporation ;

Appendix 193

and before entering upon office he shall take the oath pre-
scribed by the Constitution. In case of any vacancy the
Governor shall appoint a competent person to fill the same,
subject to the limitations of appointment contained in this
Act, and the Governor shall appoint one Commissioner every
two years as the term of the Commission named in this Act
may expire, subject to the limitations hereinbefore men-
tioned. The State Tax Commission immediately after its
organization shall appoint a Secretary to serve at the pleas-
ure of the State Tax Commission, who shall receive a
salary of Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000) per annum,
payable out of the Treasury of the State of Maryland, and
they shall also have the power to employ such others clerks
and stenographers as the Commission may deem necessary,
and the Commission shall have the power to prescribe their
duties and fix their compensation and the salaries of such
employees shall be payable out of the State Treasury of the
State of Maryland as other State employees are now paid.
The main office of the State Tax Commission shall be in
Baltimore City. The Commission may appoint an attorney
at law of the State of Maryland to be and act as the general
counsel of said Commission, whose salary shall be fixed by
said Commission.

234. It shall be the duty of the State Tax Commission
and it shall have power and authority —

(1) To have general supervision over the administra-
tion of the assessment and tax laws of the State.

(2) To have general supervision over all supervisors of
assessments and to have the final determination of assess-
ments of all property in all the Counties, Cities, Towns and
Villages of the State, to the end that all taxable property
shall be placed upon the assessment books and equalized
between persons, firms and corporations in all the Counties,
Districts, Cities, Towns and Villages of the State, so that
all persons, firms and corporations shall be assessed alike
for like kinds of property. In case any property which
under the law is subject to taxation has not been assessed,
such property may be placed on the books at any time and
shall be subject to taxation for the current and previous

194 Appendix

years, not exceeding four years in all, in the same manner
as other property is subject to taxation.

(3) To establish the form of the reports of assessment,
assessment books and collection books, and of schedules,
notices and other papers, and forms for financial and
statistical reports of County Commissioners and the Appeal
Tax Court of Baltimore City to the State Tax Commission.
The State Tax Commission is empowered to require all
these officials to use all forms furnished or prescribed by
the State Tax Commission, and shall have power to examine
all books of local governing bodies, assessing officials and
tax collectors.

(4) To provide for a uniform system of accounts to be
used by all collectors of State taxes and to require the use
thereof.

(5) To formulate, whenever the Commission shall deem
it practicable, standards or units for the assessment of
various kinds of property, and to issue instructions to local
supervisors of assessments in regard thereto and to require
the use thereof. To confer with County Commissioners and
the Appeal Tax Court of Baltimore City, and visit each
County as often as necessary.

(6) To enforce and execute a continuing method of as-
sessment and to require that all property in the State be
reviewed for assessment at least once in every five years.

(7) To require individuals, firms and corporations to
furnish complete information as to ownership of all property
taxable or exempt, and as to all facts relative to the value
thereof.

(8) To investigate at any time, on its own initiative,
assessments against any or all properties or assessments in
any County, District, City, Town or Village.

(9) To inquire into the provisions of the law of other
States and jurisdictions regarding jurisdiction and situs of
property for purpose of taxation ; to confer with Tax Com-
missioners of other States regarding the most effectual and
equitable methods of assessment, and particularly regarding
the best methods of reaching all property and avoiding con-
flicts and duplication of taxation of the same property, and

Appendix 195

to recommend to the Legislature such measures as will tend
to bring about uniformity of methods of assessment and
harmony and co-operation between the different States and
jurisdictions in matters of taxation.

(10) To provide for a system for inspection of State
licenses and to require the payment of the proper fees fixed
by law therefor.

(11) To confer with the- Governor, Comptroller and
Treasurer of the State as to the administration of the tax
laws, and to report biannually to the General Assembly its
proceedings and recommendations.

235. In each County of the State and in Baltimore City
there shall be a supervisor of assessments, who shall be a
resident thereof, and shall be appointed by the State Tax
Commission from a list of five persons submitted to the
State Tax Commission by the County Commissioners of each
County, and by the Mayor of Baltimore City in case of the
supervisor of Baltimore City, who shall be removable at
any time by the State Tax Commission for incompetency
or cause. He shall hold no other public office or profit. In
case the County Commissioners of any Countv or Mayor
of Baltimore City shall fail to furnish such a list within
twenty days' notice (after being requested so to do), the
State Tax Commission shall have power to fill such office
immediately after the expiration of such time.

The supervisor of assessments in each County shall have
general supervision over assessment of all property in the
County. He shall not be required to make assessments
which shall be made by the County Commissioners, or other
proper authorities as now required by law, but he shall have
power and it shall be his duty to appeal to the State Tax
Commission from any and all assessments or rulings which
he shall consider improper. He shall visit every district
at frequent intervals, and obtain all necessary data and
information, keep posted on sales in the County and condi-
tions attending said sales, and whenever possible shall report
the sales and consideration of all transactions within twenty
days to the State Tax Commission and the County Com-
missioners. From these reports and all evidence obtainable,

196 Appendix

it shall be determined by the respective County Com-
missioners whether the assessment against any property or
whether any unit of assessment values used in any district
or County shall be changed, and in case the data submitted
is not satisfactory either to the State Tax Commission or
to the County Commissioners, either shall have the power to
obtain additional data, and in case the assessment so de-
termined upon is not satisfactory, the State Tax Commission
or the County Commissioners shall order a new valuation.

236. The supervisor of assessments of Baltimore City
shall have access to the assessment books of Baltimore City,
and all records of the Appeal Tax Court of Baltimore City,
and to returns of all assessments made by assessors. He
shall have authority to inquire into the assessment of any
or all properties and to report the results of any investiga-
tions to the Appeal Tax Court of Baltimore City and to the
State Tax Commission, and to recommend such changes as
he may deem proper, and he shall have power to appeal to
the State Tax Commission from any assessment or ruling
of the Appeal Tax Court.

Upon any investigation which shall prima facie establish
inequality of valuation of any part of Baltimore City or
any class or kind of property, he shall immediately report
such investigation with recommendations to the State Tax
Commission, which shall have the power to order the Appeal
Tax Court to reassess such property and to have the same
entered on the assessment books.

237. In case of failure of the State Tax Commission to
agree upon any assessment with the County Commissioners
of any County, or with the Appeal Tax Court of Baltimore
City, as the case may be, then and in that case the determi-
nation of the State Tax Commission shall prevail. Nothing
herein contained shall be construed to limit the power of the
State Tax Commission to make an investigation of assess-
ments upon its own initiative in any part of the State.

238. Any taxpayer, taxpayers, or City, Town or Village
may demand a hearing before the County Commissioners or
Appeal Tax Court of Baltimore City as to the assessment of
any property or any unit of tax value, and no formal pro-

Appendix l!>7

ceedings shall be required. And in case of any hearing, the
parties may file data and information showing why any as-
sessment is deemed erroneous, and the County Commis-
sioners or Appeal Tax Court of Baltimore City shall hear
and determine the matter.

Any taxpayer, taxpayers, or City, Town or Village having
been assessed by the order of the County Commissioners or
Appeal Tax Court of Baltimore City< after a hearing as
hereinbefore provided, may appeal to the State Tax Com-
mission; or the supervisor may appeal from any decision.

There shall be an appeal to court on puestions of law
only from decisions of the State Tax Commission to the
court in that County where the property is situated, if real
estate or tangible personal property, or where the owner
resides, if intangible personal property, and the State Tax
Commission is empowered to participate in any proceeding
in any court wherein any assessment or taxation question is
involved.

239. The supervisors of assessments shall confer fre-
quently with the State Tax Commission, and submit ques-
tions for determination to that Commission, and shall re-
ceive instructions for their guidance in the supervision of
the valuation and assessment of properties, both real and
personal, and keep constantly informed what supervisors of
assessments in other parts of the State are doing.

The supervisors shall be furnished an office at the County
seat by the County Commissioners of each County, and by
the Mayor in Baltimore City, and allowed such clerical help
as the County Commissioners or Mayor of Baltimore City,
respectively, shall determine ; and the State Tax Commission
shall determine, by a general and uniform rule, what data
and information, if any, is not open for public inspection.
This Act is not intended to impose any limitation on the
power of local bodies to employ assessors.

240. The salary of the supervisors shall be paid by the
several Counties and shall be based on the agregate value of
property subject to taxation under his supervision. In those
Counties where the total value of all property shall not
exceed $5,000,000, he shall receive an annual salary of

198 Appendix

$600. If the aggregate value shall be over $5;000,000 and
less than $10,000,000 he shall receive $800.

If over $10,000,000 and less than $20,000,000— $1,000.

If over 20,000,000 and less than 30,000,000— 1,200.

If over 30,000,000 and less than 50,000,000— 1,500.

If over 50,000,000 and less than 75,000,000— 1,800.

If over 75,000,000 and less than 100,000,000— 2,000.

And if over $100,000,000 he shall receive $2,400.

The supervisor in Baltimore City shall be paid $2,100.

Such salary shall be payable monthly and the County
Commissioners of each County and the "Mayor and City
Council of Baltimore are hereby directed to raise such sum
annually as will pay said salaries, and in case the expendi-
tures for any County or Baltimore City have been fully
computed at the time that this Act shall take effect, then the
County Commissioners of said County or proper officials
in Baltimore City shall be required to provide in the next
levy for the payment of the salary from the date of the
supervisor taking office.

241. The State Tax Commission shall adopt a seal and
shall keep a full record of its proceedings, and have the
power to make rules, orders and directions as it may deem
necessary to carry into effect the objects of this Act. It
shall have power also to provide a system for hearings on
petitions filed before it, and shall adopt such rules of pro-
ceedings, manner of taking testimony and argument and
such regulations in regard to notices of assessment, hearings
and appeals as it may deem proper. The Commission, or
any member of the Commission, shall have the power to
compel the attendance of witnesses, who shall be notified
through the respective sheriffs' offices, or by any appointee
of the State Tax Commission, and said Commission or
any member may require the production of books and papers
before it or him, and may examine witnesses or cause wit-
nesses to be examined under oath, which any of its members
may administer, and in case of the failure of any person or
corporation to obey any order of the said Commission, he,
she or it shall be held liable to be punished as for contempt
of said Commission, as hereinafter provided. The Commis-

Appendix , 199

sion may, by order, as occasion shall require, refer to one of
its members the duty of taking testimony in any matter
pending before it and reporting thereon to the Commission,
but no determination shall be made therein except by
majority vote. The Commission may, for sufficient reason,
meet in any part of the State, in which case mileage and
other reasonable expenses shall be allowed.

24:2. The determination of any matter brought before
said Commission shall be evidenced by a judgment duly
signed by at least two of its members and filed with its secre-
tary ; copies thereof duly certified by said secretary and
sealed with the seal of the State Tax Commission shall be
evidence in any cause or proceedings. When the said Com-
mission shall be satisfied that any person, officer or corpora-
tion has failed to comply with its said judgment or order,
although fully apprised thereof, it shall have full power
upon procedure and rules adopted by it to attach such delin-
quent for contempt and to. punish accordingly as courts of
record have power to punish for contempt.

243. In case any section or any provision of this Act
shall be questioned in any court and shall be held unconsti-
tutional or invalid, the same shall not be held to affect any
other section or provision of this Act. All Acts and parts
oi Acts inconsistent herewith shall be and the same are
hereby repealed, but said repeals shall not revive any laws
heretofore repealed nor affect any pending suits or proceed-
ings as to the valuation and assessment of property.

244. On all appeals to the State Tax Commission herein
provided all the provisions of the Act of 1908, Chapter 1C>7,
relating to appeals to the Baltimore City Court, and of the
Act of 1910, Chapter 430, relating to appeals to the Circuit
Courts in the several Counties of the State, shall continue
in force so far as the same are applicable and not inconsis-
tent with the other provisions of this Act, except only that
the State Tax Commission shall be substituted for, and
exercise the functions now exercised under said Acts by
said Baltimore City Court and the Circuit Courts of the
several counties, respectively. Appeals from any action
of the State Tax Commission to court, as authorized by Sec-

200 Appendix

tion 238 hereof, shall be taken within thirty days of such
action by petition setting forth the question or questions
of law which it is desired by the appellant to review, and
notice thereof shall be given by summons or subpoena, duly
served on all parties directly in interest, by the Sheriff of
the county or city in which said appeal is filed, and shall be
heard and decided by the court, sitting without a jury. All
appeals to court in Baltimore City shall be to the Baltimore
City Court, and there shall be a further right of appeal to
the Court of Appeals from any decision of the Baltimore
City Court xor of the circuit courts of the several counties.
Such appeals must be taken within ten days of the final
judgment or determination of the lower court. The power
to assess shall in all cases include the power to classify for
taxation, and the power to review an assessment on appeal
shall in all cases include also the power to review any ques-
tion of classification for taxation.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the office of
State Tax Commissioner be and the same is hereby abolished
immediately upon the qualification of the Commission here-
by created and all the duties imposed upon or powers grven
by existing law (or by any Act or resolution passed at the
present session of the Legislature) to the State Tax Com-
missioner shall devolve upon the State Tax Commission ;
and wherever any duties are imposed by existing law (or by
any Act or resolution passed at the present session of the
Legislature) upon persons or corporations to make report
to the State Tax Commissioner or- to perform any other act
or thing in respect to his orifice, such duties, reports, acts
and things shall be made and performed to the State Tax
Commission. Wherever the State Tax Commissioner, by
virtue of his office, is a member of any board, committee or
other similar body, the chairman of the State Tax Commis-
sion shall hereafter serve in his place, provided that said
repeal shall in no way affect the validity of any action taken
by the State Tax Commissioner before this Act takes effect.

SE<X 3. And be it further enacted. That the sum of
$30,000 per annum or so much thereof as may be necessary
to provide for the payment of the salary of the members of

Appendix 201

the Commission, the Secretary and employees and expenses
thereof is hereby appropriated annually for the purpose of
carrying into effect all of the provisions of this Act.

THE BANK TAX ACT.

THE LAW REDUCING THE BANK TAX IN MARY-
LAND FROM TWO TO ONE PER CENT.

ACT OF 1914, CHAPTER 797.

AN ACT to add two additional Sections to Article 81 of the
Code of Public General Laws of Maryland, title "Rev-
enue and Taxes," to be known as Section 153-A and
162- A, as contained in the Code of 1912, and to thereby
provide a method for the assessment and taxation of the
stock of banks (State and National) located and doing
business in this State, and fix a rate of taxation for all
County, City and Municipal purposes thereon.

Sec. 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Mary-
land, That the following two additional Sections be and the
same are hereby added to Article 81 of the Code of Public
General Laws of Maryland, title "Revenue and Taxes," to
be known as Sections 153-A and 162-A, respectively, and
to respectively follow Section 153 and Section 162 in said
Article as contained in the Code of 1912, which new Sec-
tions shall read as follows :

153-A. In making the annual report to the State Tax
Commissioner provided for in the preceding Section of this
Article, the president, cashier or other chief officer of every
bank (State and National), located and doing business in
this State, shall expressly state in such report the amount of
the capital stock paid in, the amount of surplus, and the
amount of undivided profits, together with such other infor-
mation as may be required by the said Commissioner under
the provisions of the preceding Section.

202 Appendix

162-A. The State Tax Commissioner shall take into con-
sideration, in determining the taxable values of the shares of
stock of any bank (State or National), located and doing
business in this State (except in case of such banks as are
in liquidation), the capital stock paid in its surplus and
undivided profits, as provided for in Section 153-A of this
Act and from the valuation which the State Tax Com-
missioner may find, shall be deducted the assessed value of
the real property belonging to and assessed to such bank,
and the assessed value of all other property or investments
held or owned by banks now authorized by Chapter 124 of
the Acts of 1908 of the General Assembly of Maryland to
be so deducted, and the remainder shall be by the State Tax
Commissioner divided by the number of shares of such capi-
tal stock outstanding for the purpose of determining the
respective taxable value of each share, as provided in the
preceding Section, and there shall be paid on such valuation
the regular rate of taxation for State purposes, and there
shall also be paid on such valuation one per cent (and no
more) in all for all County, City and Municipal taxation,
which said tax shall be distributed among the different
jurisdictions entitled to tax the same shares, in the propor-
tion which the rate of each juridiction, bears to the aggre-
gate of the rates of such jurisdictions, and said tax shall
Jbe in lieu of all other taxes whatsoever, for County and
Municipal purposes upon the shares of stock and the owners
of stocks in such banks. But in the case of such banks as
may be in the course of liquidation, the aggregate value of
all shares thereof, for the purpose aforesaid, shall be de-
termined by the State Tax Commissioner from the assets
and liabilities thereof, and upon such valuation of such
shares so determined, the regular rate of taxation for State
and local purposes, shall be paid, in the manner provided
In this Article. Credits by reason of the ownership by any
such bank or banks of the Baltimore City Burnt District
Loan Stock, issued under Chapter 4fi8 of the Acts of 1904,
the Water Loan, issued under Chapter 333 of the Acts of
1902, and the Conduit Loan, issued under Chapter 246 of
the Acts of 1902, whether heretofore or hereafter issued,

Appendix 203

and also all other credits authorized and provided for under
said Chapter 124 of the Acts of 1908 of the General As-
sembly of Maryland shall be allowed as provided for in said
last mentioned Act, but shall be computed on the basis of
the rates for State, County, City and Municipal taxation,
respectively, herein prescribed; no such credits, however,
shall be allowed in any case where the officer making such
returns for such bank or banks shall fail to state in such
return that said investments are owned by the bank of
which he is such officer, and are not held by such bank as
a security for any loan, or as a collateral for any payment
or other purpose. All deductions required to be made by
the City Collector of Baltimore City by the provisions of
said last mentioned Act, shall be made in accordance with
said provisions. Nothing in this Section shall be construed
to relieve any corporation from the payment of any franchise
tax required to be paid by the provisions of Section 89 of
this Article ; provided, that nothing herein shall affect the
tax levy for 1914.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That this Act shall
take effect from the date of its passage, and that all other
laws inconsistent herewith be and the same are hereby re-
pealed, in so far as the same are inconsistent with the provis-
ions of this Act, but no further.

ACT TO EXEMPT MANUFACTURING PLANTS
THROUGHOUT THE STATE.

ACT OF 1914, CHAPTER 528.

At the sesion of 1914 the General Assembly of Maryland
passed an Act, amending sections 4, 162 and 161 of Article
81 of the Public General Laws as codified in the Annotated
Code of 1912, to encourage the development of manufac-
turing industries by exempting the tools, machinery, manu-
facturing implements and engines of corporations, firms
individuals actually engaged in manufacturing, providing.

204 Appendix

that such exemption shall be granted only when authorized
by the County Commissioners of granted only when author-
ized by the County Commissioners or the Mayor and City
Council of Baltimore.

The Act provides that "the County Commissioners of any
County shall by resolution determine by a vote of its mem-
bers whether there shall be in their respective County the
exemption of the tools, machinery, manufacturing imple-
ments and engines of corporations, firms and individuals
actually engaged in manufacturing, and duly certified to the
State Tax Commissioner of Maryland ; and the Mayor and
City Council of Baltimore shall by ordinance determine
whether the tools, machinery, manufacturing implements
and engines of corporations, firms and individuals actually
engaged in manufacturing within the City of Baltimore shall
be exempt from taxation ; and wherever no determination
has been made and duly certified to the State Tax Commis-
sioner, then and in that case, the tools, machinery, manu-
facturing implements and engines of corporations, firms and
individuals, actually engaged in manufacturing, shall be re-
quierd to pay all taxes assessed against said property."

THE ACT FIXING THE TAX RATE ON DIVIDEND

PAYING SECURITIES AT FIFTEEN CENTS

FOR THE STATE AND THIRTY

CENTS FOR COUNTIES AND

CITIES.

ACT OF 1914, CHAPTER 411,

AN ACT to repeal Section 214, of Article 81 of the
Annotated Code of Public General Laws of 1912, title
"Revenue and Taxes." and to re-enact the same with
amendments.

Sec. 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Mary-
land, That Section 214 of Article 81 of the Annotated Code

Appendix 205

of Public General Laws of 1912, title "Revenue and Taxes,"
be and it is hereby repealed and re-enacted so as to read as
follows :

SEC. 214. All bonds, certificates of indebtedness or evi-
dence of debt in whatsoever form made or issued by any
public or private corporation incorporated by this State or
any other State, territory, district or foreign country, or is-
sued by any State (except the State of Maryland), terri-
tory, district or foreign country not exempt from taxation
by the laws of this State, and owned by residents of Mary-
land, shall be subject to valuation and assessment to the
owners thereof in the county or city in which such owners
may respectively reside, and they shall be assessed at their
actual value in the market, and such upon which no interest
shall be actually paid shall not be valued at all, and upon
such valuation the regular rate of taxation for State pur-
poses, but in no event more than fifteen cents on each one
hundred dollars, shall be paid, and there shall also be paid on
such valuation thirty cents and no more on each one hundred
dollars for county, city and municipal taxation in such
county or city of this State in which the owners may reside.
All shares of stock or shares in any bank other than a
national bank, or in any company or corporation incor-
porated by or located in and doing business in any other
State, or District of Columbia, or in any territory or foreign
country owned by residents of this State, shall be valued
and assessed for the purpose of State, county and municipal
taxation to the owners thereof in the county or city in which
such owners may reside, and said shares shall be assessed
and valued at their actual value in the market, and those
upon which no dividend shall be actually paid shall not
be valued at all, and upon the valuation so made the regular
rate of taxation for State purposes, but in no event more
than fifteen cents on each hundred dollars, shall be paid, and
there shall also be paid on such valuation thirty cents, and
no more, on each one hundred dollars for county, city and
municipal taxation in such county or city of this State iu
which the owners may reside.

206 Appendix

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That this act shall
take effect on the day of its passage, provided that nothing
herein contained shall affect taxes for the year 1914 or any
year prior thereto.

THE ACT EXEMPTING STATE, COUNTY AND
CITY BONDS FROM TAXATION.

ACT OF 1914, CHAPTER 43.

AN ACT to add a new Section to Article 81 of the Code of
Public General Laws, title "Revenue and Taxes," sub-
title "Exemptions," to be designated 4-A and to follow
Section 4 of said Article.

Sec 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Mary-
land, That a new Section be and the same is hereby added
to Article 81 of the Code of Public General Laws, title
"Revenue and Taxes, sub-title Exemptions," to be designated
4-A and to follow Section 4 of said Article, and to read as
follows :

4-A For the year nineteen hundred and fourteen and
thereafter all bonds, stocks, certificates of indebtedness or
other obligations in whatsoever form hereafter to be issued
by the State of Maryland, or by any County*, City or Muni-
cipal Corporation or other political sub-division of this State,
either under a law heretofore passed or under a law here-
after to be passed, and all bonds, stocks, certificates of in-
debtedness or other obligations in whatsoever form hereto-
fore issued by any County or Municipal Corporation of this
State and which, prior to the passage of this Act, have been
sold under terms rendering such County, City or Municipal
Corporation liable for the State Tax thereon on behalf of the
holders, shall be exempt from taxation for State, County,
Municipal and other local purposes ; but nothing herein con-
tained shall be construed to deprive corporations of the
credits, deductions and allowances on their shares provided
for in Section 163 of Article 81, of Bagby's Code of Public

Appendix 207

Civil Laws, which shall continue to be allowed to the same
extent as if all of the stock debt of this State upon which,
but for the passage of this Act, the State tax would have
been deducted by the Treasurer, and all of the stock debt
of the City of Baltimore on which, but for the passage of
this Act, the State taxes would have been paid, or payable
by said city, had continued subject respectively to said de-
ductions or payments of taxes without any change hereby.

Sec 2. And be it further enacted, That this Act shall
take effect from the date of its passage, and all Acts and
parts of Acts inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed.

AN ACT DEFINING THE MANNER IN WHICH THE

REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY AND

SHARES OF STOCK OF 'ORDINARY

BUSINESS CORPORATIONS"

SHALL BE VALUED AND

ASSESSED.

ACT OF 1914, CHAPTER 324.

AN ACT to repeal Sections 100 to 105, both inclusive, of
Article 81, as the same are numbered and set forth in
the annotated Code of the Public Civil Laws of Mary-
land, as legalized by Chapter 21 of the Acts of 1912 of
the General Assembly of Maryland, title "Revenue and
Taxes," sub-title " Bonus Tax on Capital Stock/' and
to make all such Sections and parts of Sections of said
Article 81, title "Revenue and Taxes," as relate to the
taxation of the capital stock of corporations defined in
this Act as "ordinary business corporations," and any
amendments thereof, inapplicable to such "ordinary
business corporations ;" and to provide as a substitute
for the Sections of said Article so repealed or made
inapplicable, six new Sections as an addition to Article
23 of said annotated Code of Public Civil Laws of

208 Appendix

Maryland, to follow immediately after Section 88 of
said Article 23, and to be numbered respectively Sec-
tions 88-A, 88-B, 88-C, 88-D, 88-E and 88-F, providing
for the payment of a bonus tax by certain corporations,
prescribing the method of taxation of "ordinary busi-
ness corporations," and defining "ordinary business
corporations."

Skc. 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Mary-
land, That Sections 100 to lOo, both inclusive, of Article 81,
as the same are numbered and set forth in the Annotated
Code of the Public Civil Laws of Maryland, as legalized by
Chapter 21 of the Acts of 1912 of the General Assembly of
Maryland, tittle "Revenue and Taxes," sub-title "Bonus Tax
on Capital Stock," be and the same are hereby repealed ; and
that all such Sections and parts of Sections of said Article
81, title "Revenue and Taxes," as relate to the taxation of
the capital stock of corporations denned in this Act as
"Ordinary Business Corporations," and any amendments
thereof, be and the same are hereby made inapplicable to
such "Ordinary Business Corporations ;" and that as a
substitute for the Sections of said Article so repealed or
made inapplicable, the following six new Sections shall be
and the same are hereby enacted as an addition to Article
23 of said Annotated Code of the Public Civil Laws of
Maryland, to follow immediately after Section 88 of said
Article 2:>, and to be numbered respectively Sections 88-A,
88-B, 88-C, 88-D, 88-E and 88-F, and to read respectively
as follows :

Sec. 88-A Every corporation of this State having a
capital stock except railroads and building or homestead
associations, shall, at the time of incorporation, pay for the
use of the State a bonus tax at the rate of twenty cents
for every thousand dollars of the amount of its authorized
capital stock, and at the time of amending its articles of
incorporation to effect an increase of its authorized capital
stock, a like bonus tax upon the authorized amount of any
such increase thereof, but in no case shall such payment be
less than twenty dollars ; provided, however, that in the case

Appendix 209

of the consolidation of existing corporations to form a new
corporation such new corporation shall be required to pay
the bonus tax herein prescribed, for only the amount of its
capital stock in excess of the aggregate amount of capital
stock of the constitutent corporations; and the amount of
such bonus tax shall be deposited with the State Tax Com-
missioner, in cash or in such other form as shall be accept-
able to him, when the certificate of incorporation, or the
articles of amendment increasing the capital stock, are filed,
who shall account quarterly therefor to the Comptroller and
pay the same forthwith to the State Treasurer for the use
of the State.

Sec. 88-B. All corporations having a capital stock, shall
for the purpose of this Act, be ordinary business cor-
porations, and are hereby so defined, except railroad com-
panies whose roads are worked by steam, electric or other
power, street and passenger railways, steamship and steam-
boat companies, and all other common carriers, telegraph,
cable, telephone, express, transportation, parlor car, sleep-
ing car, and oil pipe companies, turnpike companies, bridge
companies, and sewerage disposal companies, safe deposit
and trust companies, guarantee and fidelity companies, insur-
ance companies of all kinds, electric light, electric con-
struction, heating, refrigerating, water and gas companies,
building or homestead associations, state, national and sav-
ings banks, or savings or moneyed institutions. Every
ordinary business corporation created or to be created under
the laws of this State shall from and after the expiration
of the year 1914 be exempt from taxation on its shares, nor
shall its shares be assessed or valued, for the purpose of
taxation in the hands of the holders thereof.

Sec. 88-C. Every ordinary business corporation shall be
subject to taxation upon its property, real and personal
which would be taxable in this State if such corporation
were a natural person and engaged in a similar business, and
the taxes thereon shall be levied, assessed and collectible
in the following manner and not otherwise: On all real
property the taxes shall be levied and assessed, and shall
be payable at its situs, as now provided by law. All personal

210 Appendix

property of such corporation, exclusive of bonds, shares of
stock and securities as enumerated in Article 81, Section
214 of the Code of Public Civil Laws (1912) and property
which by law is exempt from taxation, and exclusive of
manufacturing plants situated in any city or county in which
by law or ordinance manufacturing plants are exempt from
county or municipal taxation shall be valued and assessed
by the State Tax Commissioner or any State officer or
officers who may be authorized to exercise the functions now
or formerly exercised by the State Tax Commissioner, and
when so valued, the whole personal assessment shall be
apportioned between the several counties and cities of the
State by the State tax Commissioner or other State officers,
in the proportion which the number of shares of stock of
such corporation held by residents of each county or city
of this State bears to the total number of shares of stock of
such corporation outstanding, stock of such corporation
held by non-residents of this State being treated for this
purpose as if held by residents of the county, city or
municipality where the main office of such corporation in
this State for the transaction of business is actually situated,
and when so apportioned the State, County and municipal
taxes thereon shall be payable by such corporation to the
officers authorized to collect State, County and Municipal
taxes at the residence of such stockholders at the tax rate
fixed by the State and County, City or Municipality at the
residence of such stockholders, bonds, shares of stock and
securities as enumerated in Article 81, Section 214 of the
Code of Public Civil Laws (1912) owned by an ordinary
business corporation shall be valued and assessed in the
manner and taxes shall be paid thereon at the rate provided
in said Article 81, Section 214 as if owned by a natural
person.

Sec. 88-D. From and after the expiration of the year
1914, everv such business corporation shall pay annually to
the State Treasurer on or before the first day of M'ay in
each year succeeding the date of its incorporation, an annual
tax for its franchises to be a corporation (in addition to any
tax now imposed by law) at the following rate, that is to

Appendix 211

say : On the amount of its capital stock issued and out-
standing on the first day of the preceding January for the
first five thousand dollars or less the sum of ten dollars ; for
every one thousand dollars or fractional part thereof in
excess of said five thousand dollars up to and not greater
than fifty thousand dollars the additional sum of one dollar;
for every additional fifty thousand dollars or fractional part
thereof in excess of said fifty thousand dollars up to and not
greater than five hundred thousand dollars the sum of
twenty five dollars ; if the amount of such capital stock is
more than five hundred thousand dollars and not more than
five million dollars there shall be an additional annual fran-
chise tax on such excess over five hundred thousand dollars
at the rate of two hundred and fifty dollars for every million
dollars or fractional part thereof and on every million dol-
lars in excess of five million dollars the additional tax on
such excess shall be at the rate of one hundred dollars for
each million dollars or fractional part thereof. And for the
purpose of this Section, the entire authorized capital stock
of such corporation, as shown by the charter, certificate of
incorporation or any amendment thereof shall be taken as
issued, unless on or before the first day of March in each
and every year the corporation shall file with the State Tax
Commissioner a certificate signed and sworn to by two of
its directors, showing the actual number of its outstanding
shares as of the first day of the preceding January. The
Comptroller shall annually on or before the first day of
April in each year, transmit to such corporation a bill for
the amount of its franchise tax, and such tax shall be pay-
able on or before the first day of May following, and shall
bear interest thereafter ; if such tax shall not be paid before
the first day of November following, a penalty of ten per
cent, on the amount thereof shall be added, and the Comp-
troller shall place the bill therefor in the hands of the At-
torney General for collection by suit in the name of the
State and the failure of any such corporation to pay such
tax, interest and penalty shall constitute a cause for for-
feiture, for which dissolution proceedings may be instituted
as above provided by this Article.

212 Appendix

Sec. 887E. One-half of the annual tax for the franchise
provided for by Section 88-D of this Article, together with
the interest and penalty, if any, shall be held by the Treas-
urer for the use of the State, and the other half shall be
paid by him forthwith to the County or City according to
the number of shares held by the residents of such county
or city.

Sec. 88-F. Excepting ordinary business corporations, all
corporations of this State, including their franchises, shares
and property, and national banks located in this State shall
remain and be subject to taxation, as now is or hereafter
may be provided by law, and nothing herein shall be con-
strued to exempt an ordinary business corporation from the
payment of any license tax or charge imposed by law.

AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY CHARTER RELATING
TO METHODS OF TAXATION.

ACT OF 1914, CHAPTER 532.

AN ACT to repeal and re-enact, with amendments, Sections
40, 43, 51, 164-A, 167 and 171 of Article 4 of the Code
of Public Local Laws, title "City of Baltimore," sub-
title "Charter."
Sec. 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Mary-
land, That Sections 40, 43, 51, 164-A, 167 and 17i of Article
4 of the Code of Public Local Laws, title "City of Balti-
more," sub-title "Charter," be and the same are hereby
repealed and re-enacted with amendments, so as to read as
follows :

40. The Board of Estimates shall, on the first day of
October, or as soon thereafter as practicable, in the year
eighteen hundred and ninety-eight and in each succeeding
year, procure from the proper municipal department and
shall send, with the said ordinance of estimates, to both
branches of the City Council, a report showing the taxable
basis for the next ensuing fiscal year, and the amount which

ApPENDrx g \:\

can reasonably be expected to be realized by taxation for
said year. The report shall contain an aggregate statement
of all the moneys to be expended during the next ensuing
fiscal year by the City, as set forth in said ordinance of
estimates, as well as of any other sums, if such there be,
which the City may be required to expend during the said
year for any purpose or purposes not included in the ordi-
nance of estimates, and it shall also state the total income
which can reasonably be expected to be received by the City
for the next ensuing fiscal year from licenses, fees, rents and
all other charges, including the amount believed to be col-
lectible from taxes in arrears. The report shall show the
difference between such anticipated expenditures and re-
ceipts of the City, and shall state a rate for the levy of taxes
sufficient to realize the amount required to meet the said dif-
ference. In the ordinance making the annual levy of taxes,
which ordinance shall be passed by the Mayor and City
Council of Baltimore in the month of November in each
year, and as soon as practicable after the passage of the
ordinance of estimates, the Mayor and City Council of
Baltimore shall fix a rate of taxation not less than the rate
stated in the aforesaid report; so that it shall not be
necessary at any time for the City, its officers or agents,
to create a floating debt to meet any deficiency, and it shall
not be lawful for the City, its officers or agents, to create a
floating debt for any such purpose. The taxes levied under
said ordinance in the month of November in each year shall
be the taxes to be collected for the fiscal year next ensuing
after the said month of November and shall be due and
may be paid to the City Collector on or after the first day
of January next ensuing. The taxes included in said levy
on real estate or chattels real, and on all forms of personal
property including shares of stock and other property,
valued or subject to valuation by the State Tax Commis-
sioner shall be in arrears on the first day of July next
ensuing the date of their levy, and the taxes on all forms of
property after they become in arrears as aforesaid shall bear
interest at the rate of six per centum per annum.

214 Appendix

43. Whenever it shall become necessary to sell any part
or parcel of ground in the City of Baltimore, improved or
unimproved, for the payment of any taxes or assessment,
of any nature or kind whatever, levied or charged, the City
Collector shall first give notice by advertisement published
once a week for four successive weeks in two of the daily
newspapers published in said city, one of which shall be in
the German language, and in every issue of the Municipal
Journal during said four weeks, that he will sell said
property at public auction on the day in said advertise-
ment mentioned. Said notice shall state the name of the
person, when known, to whom such a parcel of ground is
assessed, the amount of taxes due on the same, and what im-
provements, if any, are on said parcel of ground, and to
properly describe said property the City Collector shall pro-
cure a description from the Land Records and no survey
shall be made unless a proper description cannot be obtained
from the Land Records, and no charge for survey shall be
made unless a survey is actually made. If a proper de-
scription cannot be obtained from the Land Records, the
City Surveyor shall, upon direction of the City Collector
make a proper survey and furnish a description and plat to
ihe City Collector, and the sum of three dollars for the cost
of such survey shall be added to the tax bill, and collected
in the same manner as the bill itself, and paid over to the
City Register for the use of the City. The City Collector
shall, before advertising said property for sale give to the
person or persons so in- arrears, or to one of them, if more
than one, or leave at his or her or their residence, or last
known residence of one of them, and if no such residence be
known, there shall be left upon the premises so to be sold for
taxes, a statement of his or her or their indebtedness, and
not less than thirty days' notice of his (said Collector's)
intention, if the bill is not paid, to enforce the payment
thereof by distraint or execution. Provided, however, that
this paragraph shall not apply to or affect the present City
Surveyor.

51. The City Collector shall at least two weeks before the
taxes become in arrear give notice, by advertisement in two

Appendix 215

daily papers published in Baltimore City and in the Munici-
pal Journal, of the day on which all taxes for the current
fiscal year become in arrear ; and shall, on the application, in
person or by agent or by mail, of any person to whom
property is assessed, deliver or send by mail a bill showing
the amount of taxes due by such person. Two weeks
before the day on which such taxes shall by law be in arrear,
he shall give notice by advertisement in the same way that
all taxes not paid on or before that date will be in arrears,
and that the property on which said taxes are levied will
then be subject to be sold for taxes. And said notice shall
further state that unless the taxes are paid before they
become so in arrear, an amount equal to one per centum per
annum on the gross amount thereof, accounting from the
date when said taxes become in arrear shall be added to
each bill for taxes in arrear; and if the same be not paid
before they so become in arrear an amount equal to one per
centum per annum of the gross amount of each bill, ac-
counting from the time said taxes became in arrear to the
time of the payment thereof, shall be added thereto as a
penalty, and collected in the same manner as the bill itself,
said penalty to be paid to the City Collector and by him to
the City Register to the credit of the Mayor and City
Council. In the case of escaped or omitted property the
penalty herein provided, and also interest shall be added
to the tax bills for the current and back years in the same
manner as if such property had not escaped or been omitted.
l(il-A. The Appeal Tax Court of Baltimore City shall
have the power at any time to value and assess all personal
property and to revise such valuations and assessments, and
to value and assess and to revise all valuations and assess-
ments of real property in said city, and to lower or increase
said assessment of real or personal property, and to take
steps for the discovery and assessment of all unassessed
property of every kind. And it shall be the duty of said
Court, at least once in every five years, to carefully make
such general revision of all of the assessable property in said
City. Whenever said Court shall propose to alter or change
any assessment, or make any new assessment, they shall, be-

216 Appendix

fore such assessment is made, give at least ten days' notice
thereof, in writing, served upon the owner of the property to
be assessed or re-assessed, or upon the person in possession
of the property to be assessed, or in whose custody the same
may be, or, if it be land and no one be in apparent occupancy
thereof, then by a notice posted on said land. Said notice
shall contain such interrogatories as may be reasonably
necessary to enable said Court to correctly assess the
property. Said interrogatories shall be answered, signed
and sworn to by the owner of the property, or by the
authorized agent of such owner, having knowledge of the
facts inquired for in said interrogatories. Such affidavit
may be made before any Judge of the Appeal Tax Court, or
any assessor thereof, who is hereby authorized to take the
same, and who shall take the same without charge ; or such
affidavit may be made before any officer authorized by law
to take affidavits. If any person upon whom such inter-
rogatories are served shall neglect or refuse to answer, sign
and make oath to the same, personally or by authorized
agent as aforesaid, within ten days after service of the same,
the Appeal Tax Court shall proceed to assess the property
therein referred to, according to law, upon their best in-
formation and judgment in the premises, and shall add
thereto an additional assessment of 20% of the amount of
such assessment so ascertained, as a penalty for such failure
or refusal to answer said interrogatories. Said additional
assessment may be abated, in whole or in part, by the Appeal
Tax Court, at any time before October first in any year, to
take effect for the ensuing year, upon the filing of said
interrogatories answered, signed and sworn to as above
provided, and the Court shall thereupon fix the assessment
at such figure as will represent the proper valuation of such
property. Nothing herein, or done in pursurance hereof,
shall be construed to relieve any escaped or omitted property
from being assessed when discovered, as may be provided
by law. The said Court, in order to make any valuation,
assessment, revaluation or reassessment, shall have power
to summon before it any person, and to interrogate him or
her in reference to the existence, situation, ownership or

Appendix 217

value of any property liable to assessment by said Court, or
in reference to the taxable residence of any person, and any
person so summoned and refusing to appear, and any person
refusing to be sworn, or to answer touching said value,
revaluation or assessment, or touching his or her property,
or touching any other fact relevant to any inquiry before
said Court, shall be liable to prosecution therefor, and, upon
conviction, shall be fined not exceeding one hundred dol-
lars, to be collected as other fines are collected.

167. The said Court is directed to alter and correct the
account of any person who may have disposed of or acquired
any property since the last assessment, or whose property,
or any part thereof, may have been omitted, if the report of
such disposition, acquisition or omission be supplied by
satisfactory evidence; and if real estate or other property
shall, from any cause, have increased or decreased in value
since the last assessment, the said Court shall correct and
alter the assessment of the same, so as to conform to its
present value, provided that any party desiring to apply to
the Appeal Tax Court for a revaluation of any real or
personal property, shall make such application before the
first day of September, in order to be acted on so as to take
effect for the ensuing year. The Appeal Tax Court shall
not receive or act upon any such application made after the
first day of September in any year, so as to affect the
assessment for the ensuing year.

171, In the year eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, and
in all succeeding years thereafter, the valuation of the
property subject to taxation in the City of Baltimore, as
it shall appear upon the assessment books of said Court on
the first day of October in each and every year, shall be
final and conclusive, and constitute the basis upon which
taxes for the next ensuing fiscal year shall be assessed and
levied ; provided that the foregoing provision shall not apply
to property in the City liable to taxation, and which may
have escaped or which may have been omitted in the regular
course of valuation, but such property shall be valued and
assessed and the owner or owners thereof charged with
current taxes and back taxes, not exceeding four years,

218 Appendix

•

justly due thereon, whenever the same may be discovered
and placed upon the assessment books ; and the annual
levy for each and every year shall be deemed and taken to
have covered and embraced all property which was not
assessed, but which ought to have been assessed, for the
year for which any such levy was made. The said Court
shall, on the first day of October, or as soon thereafter
as practicable, in the year nineteen hundred and fourteen,
and in all succeeding years thereafter make out and deliver
to the City Collector a statement showing the valuation and
assessment of all the property subject to taxation in said
City, as it shall appear upon the assessment books of said
Court on said first day of October ; such statement shall
contain a full list of all the real estate as the same has been
valued and assessed by blocks, corresponding so far as may
be practicable with the block numbers used in the Record
Office of the Superior Court of Baltimore City, with the
location and description of each piece or parcel of ground
so assessed and valued, and also shall contain an alphabeti-
cal list of all persons to whom personal property has been
assessed. The said statement shall be known as the taxable
basis for the next ensuing fiscal year, and after the levy of
taxes it shall be designated as the tax roll for said year.
Further, the said Appeal Tax Court shall submit to the
Board of Estimates on the first day of October, or as soon
thereafter as practicable, a statement of the total valuation
of the respective classes of property as shown on the annual
roll submitted by the Appeal Tax Court of Baltimore to the
City Collector. The said Court shall perform such other
duties as may be prescribed by law or ordinances not in-
consistent with this Article.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, Ttoat this Act shall
take effect from the date of its passage.

Appendix 219

EXTRACT FROM THE ACT EXEMPTING FIVE
HUNDRED DOLLARS OF HOUSEHOLD

FURNITURE.

ACT OF 1914, CHAPTER 467.

Beginning with and for the year 1915, and thereafter,
all household furniture and effects in this state held for the
household use of the owner thereof or members of his or
her family shall be exempt from taxation for State and
local purposes to the extent of $500 of the assessed value
thereof; but nothing herein shall be construed to apply to
any furniture or effects held or employed for purposes of
profit or in connection with any business, profession or
occupation.

INDEX.

ABATEMENTS.

applications to be made to Appeal Tax Court or County Com-
missioners, i.
for allowance or deduction from existing assessment, I.
on account of sale, transfer or alienation of property, I.
on account of loss or removal of property, I.
or through collection of any security for money, i.
as to the disposal thereof and re-investment of proceeds, I-

ACCURACY OF ASSESSMENTS.

presumptions are in favor of the accuracy of assessments, I.

assumed in each case that proper notice was given, I.

that correct method of valuation was used, I.

and that valuation is fair, i.

burden of showing to the contrary is on the complainant, I.

ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE SITUS.

right of city or county to assess property that has con-
structive or actual situs within their bounds, 97.

ACTUAL VALUES.

the value of an article is what it will bring at a fair sale, 101.
the market price of stocks a proper index of their value, 101.
in assessing domestic shares, the Tax Commission should
have special regard for the market price, 102.

ACTIONS TO RECOVER TAXES.

see NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, 106.

legal method to compel property owner to pay, 1-2.

suit for taxes not affected by failure of collector to give due
notice, 2.

payment of corporation taxes may be enforced by suit, 2.

duties of county collectors in the recovery of taxes, 2.

suits for taxes not authorized until they are in arrears, 2.

a person assessed without notice entitled to injunction to re-
strain collection, 2-3.

222 Index

ACTS OF TAX OFFICIALS MUST BE WITHIN LAW.
no person can be taxed without notice, 3.
County Commissioners must set aside names of persons so
assessed, 3.

ADMINISTRATORS AND EXECUTORS.

must pay taxes first after funeral expenses, 3.

their duty to ascertain what taxes are due, 3.

held affected by notice for taxes due on property held by
them. 3.

may be sued in county where he resides or where he obtained
administration, 3-4.

taxes not debts, and no set-off is admissible. 4.

situs of taxation of securities of estate is the place of admin-
istration, 4.

executor has right to retain money to pay paving tax bill, 4.

administrators who are creditors must prove their claims
before approval by Orphans' Court, 4.

ALIENOR AND ALIENEE.

liability for taxes on property sold and acquired, 4-5-
duty of Appeal Tax Court to correct record when property
is alienated, 5.

ANNEX BLOCK BOUNDARIES.

a paved alley, though in bad condition, may serve as a boun-
dary, 5.
a block of ground, with unpaved lane as one boundary, not

subject to full city rate. 7.
a turnpike road, graded as a street, may be treated as a block

boundary, 7.
private alley through block exceeding 200.000 square feet, not

a boundary to divide the block. 7.
an alley need not be kerbed to make it a boundary. 28.
streets and alleys bounding on a block need not be public to

justify the city tax. 31.

ANNEX BLOCKS EXCEEDING 200,000 SQUARE FEET,
cannot be assessed at the full city rate. 6.
prohibitory provision in Act of 1902, Chap. 130, 6.
block containing 200,600 square feet cannot, be classified at
city rate, 6.

Index 223

ANNEX BLOCKS EXCEEDING 200,000 SQUARE FEET—
Continued.

lots of ground exceeding 200 feet in depth in a block of more
than 200,000 square feet must be classified at rural rate, 7.

ANNEX PROPERTY— WHEN LIABLE FOR CITY TAXES.

see PURPOSE OF THE "LANDED PROPERTY/' ACT
OF 1902, RELATING TO ANNEXED TERRITORY,
131.
may be so classified when it reaches development described

by the Legislature, 7.
duty of Appeal Tax Court to list property when so de-
veloped. 7-8.

ANNEXATION ACT NOT A CONTRACT.

the Act of 1888 not a contract between two parties, 8.

a grant of the sovereign power of taxation to Baltimore"

City, 8.
power may be withdrawn or modified at any time, 8.

APPEALS FROM ASSESSMENTS.

see STATE TAX COMMISSION, ACT OF 191k, APPEN-
DIX, p. 191.

appeals from County Commissioners and Appeal Tax Court, 8.

if question be of fact, appeal must be made to State Tax
Commission, 8.

if question be one of law. appeal may be made to the courts,
8.

aggrieved party must pursue the remedy pointed out by the
law, 8-9.

otherwise, equity will not intervene to relieve him, 9.

appeals from refusal of County Commissioners to abate ex-
isting assessments, 9.

Act of 1910, Chap. 430, does not refer to Commissioners when
acting as a board of control and review, 9.

no remedy for taxpayers who fail to exercise their legal
right to appeal, 9.

when appeals may be made from county boards of control, 9.

only when complainant alleges he is not the owner, or prop-
erty is exempt, 9.

224 Index

APPEALS FROM ASSESSMENTS— Continued.

Court of Appeals not required to review findings as to
facts, 10.

but may intervene when assessments are capricious and un-
warranted, io.

APPLICATIONS FOR ABATEMENTS.

taxpayers who apply for abatements must give information
to tax authorities as to sales and transfers, I.

APPLICATION FOR REDUCTION OF ASSESSMENTS.

applications for reduction of assessments in Baltimore must
be filed in Appeal Tax Court before September I. (See
Act of 1914, Appendix, p. 217).

ASSESSMENTS FOR SPECIAL BENEFITS.

see PAVING TAX A LAWFUL EXERCISE OF LEG1S-
TIVE POWER, 116.
PAVING TAX ON PROPERTY, NOT ON OWNER,

117.
SPECIAL TAXES— POWER OF LEGISLATURE TO
IMPOSE, 151.

no objection that benefits are not assessable because a special
fund has been appropriated for the object, 10.

existence of a street loan will not relieve property owner
from assessment, 10.

right to assess real estate for benefits, recognized in all the
states, 11.

theory that those benefited should contribute to the cost, 11.

power to make such assessments expressly granted to City of
Baltimore, 11.

right to make such assessments an exercise of the taxing
power, II.

based on supposition that property is enhanced in value, 11.

improvement must be for a public purpose to justify assess-
ment, 11.

question of benefit left exclusively, to Mayor and City Coun-
cil, 12.

courts have no power to review such question, 12.

Legislature has constitutional power to authorize such assess-
ments, 12.

Index 225

ASSESSMENTS FOR SPECIAL PURPOSES— Continued.

excessive estimates of benefits may be corrected by court and
jury, 12.

special assessments may be levied for a public work already
done, 12.

where an assessment ordinance is declared void, the Legisla-
ture may authorize special assessments against the prop-
erty, 12-13.

ASSESSMENT OF A DISTRIBUTED ESTATE VOID.

an assessment against an estate after it has been distributed
by order of Orphans' Court is illegal and void. 13.

in making such an assessment, County Commissioners ex-
ceeded their powers, 13.

ASSESSMENTS GENERALLY— METHODS IN MAKING,
INCREASING AND CORRECTING.

see NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, 106.

power of assessing not to be exercised in arbitrary or capri-
cious manner, 13.

with due regard for rights of property owner, 13.

property owner must be heard before his rights are deter-
mined, 13.

assessment without notice illegal and void. 14.

judgment of County Commissioners final when legal condi-
tions are observed, 14.

where they proceed without warrant of law, Equity Courts
will intervene. T4.

authority to levy taxes must be strictly pursued, 14.

levy is binding, though it is made on day other than that
named in statute, 14.

statute fixing levy day, merely directory, 14.

acts of a tax collector are unlawful if he be illegally ap-
pointed, though bonded, 14.

when property is only partly exempt, the net income may be
capitalized as the basis of assessment. 15.

assessments may be made by direct legislative act, 15.

where a taxpayer makes a return to the Appeal Tax Court,
he is estopped from raising the objection that the assess-
ment is illegal. 15.

226 Index

BALTIMORE AND OHIO R. R. TAXATION.

property, franchises, capital stock and shares of stock in
hands of shareholders are exempt under Act of 1826,
Sec. 18, 16.

exemption therein granted, a contract with the state, 16.

not repealable by subsequent Legislature, 16.

buildings, elevators, wharves, piers and docks, exempt, 16.

gross receipts exempt, 17.

structures used for storage purposes, steamship and steam-
boats, and bonds of other railways owned by the com-
pany are taxable, 17-18.

BANK TAXATION.

see BANK TAX ACT, APPENDIX, p. 201.
where shares of stock in the hands of the holders is taxed, the

real and personal property of the bank becomes exempt,

18-19.
to tax both property and stock would be a double tax. and

illegal and unjust, 19.
under Act of 1841, the city taxes on banks was legal, but the

state tax void, 19-20.
taxes paid on bank stock, although the money was not due,

cannot be recovered back. 20.
United States statutes authorized the states to tax either the

real property or shares of national banks, but not both,

20.
shares of stock and personal property of foreign corporations

may be taxed in Maryland, 21.
such a tax is not a double tax, 21.
the tax on shares is a tax on the owners, and the tax on

tangible property, a tax on the corporation. 21.
exemption of personal property of state corporations does not

invalidate tax on personal property of foreign corpor-
ation, 21.
State has no lien on bank stock for taxes, 21.
nor any right of action against the bank or a stockholder, 21.
state has a right to be paid taxes on bank stock out of the

dividends declared, 21.
a legislative levy on bank stock, 21.
Code, Art. 81, sec. 214, not a discrimination against national

banks, 22.

Index 227

BENEVOLENT INSTITUTIONS.

see EXEMPTIONS FROM TAXATION, 67.

persons claiming exemption, must show affirmatively that it

is authorized by law, 23.
if there is a doubt, the doubt must be resolved in favor of

the state, 23.
exemptions must be granted in terms clear and unequivocal,

23-

the right of taxation is never presumed to be relinquished, 23.
where only part of a building is used for benevolent purposes,

the remaining part must be taxed as other property is

taxed, 24.

"BLOCK OF GROUND" IN THE ANNEX.

an area not exceeding 200,000 superficial square feet, 24.
must be bounded on all sides by streets, graded, kerbed and

paved with substantial material, 24.
taxing power limited by these requisite conditions, 24.
courts not authorized to carve out blocks by using private

alleys as boundaries, 25.
court cannot ignore plain provision of the statute as to what

constitutes a block. 25.

BONDED INDEBTEDNESS.

the bonded indebtedness of a corporation not taxable, 26.
under Maryland statutes, no part of it is assessable property,
26.

BOND TAXATION.

bonds secured by mortgage are assessable to the owners. 102.
corporations not taxable therefor, 102.

BONDS OF RAILROADS TAXABLE.

bonds of Northern Central and Baltimore and Ohio Rail-
roads taxable, 26.

railway bonds do not come within the terms of the law ex-
empting mortgages in this state, 26.

exemptions under legislative act must be rigidly construed, 26.

BONDS OF TAX COLLECTORS.

sureties cannot plead that they did not know the collector
was a defaulter at the time of reappointment, 26.

226 Index

BONDS OF TAX COLLECTORS— Continued.

a surety on a tax collector's bond, cannot plead that the

required oath had not been taken by the collector, 26.
where the collector fails to pay a sura of money ordered by
the County Commissioners, the sureties are liable for the
amount, 26-27.

BONUS TAX.

a corporation has no legal existence until bonus tax is paid,

27.
a defendant, sued by a corporation, may plead non-payment

of the bonus tax in bar, 27.
a subscription to corporation stock is a nullity, if the bonus

tax has not been paid, 27.

BOOK VALUES OF STOCK.

book values of shares of stock not a true measure of value,
27.

BRIDGES.

bridges across streams in Maryland are taxable in county
where situated, 30.

BUILDING ASSOCIATIONS.

exemption of building associations from taxation not re-
pealed by Act of 1896. 30.

building associations not being money making corporations,
their exemption is not arbitrary.

BURDEN OF PROOF IX TAX APPEALS.

he who asks affirmative relief, has the burden of proof, 31.
incumbent on him to show he is entitled to relief, 31.

CAPITAL STOCK TAX.

the tax on capital stock is a tax on the share owners, 31.

not a tax upon the corporation, 31.

the corporation merely the collector of the tax, 31.

CAPRICIOUS VALUATIONS.

valuation made in capricious or unwarrantable way, no assess-
ment at all, 10.

Index •.>:><)

CATTLE.

cattle brought to Maryland for shipment elsewhere, taxable
here, 32.

the tax not a levying of a duty on exports, 32.

a stock of cattle is taxed at its average value, just as a mer-
chant's stock is taxed, 32.

CEMETERIES LIABLE FOR PAVING TAX.

cemeteries are not exempt from a paving tax levied by the
city, 32.

CEMETERY IMPROVEMENTS.

improvements essential to a cemetery are not taxable, 32.

CHARTER EXEMPTIONS.

where the charter of a town exempts securities from taxa-
tion, a general assessment law does not affect exemp-
tion, 102.

CHURCH PROPERTY SOLD AFTER ASSESSMENT.

a church, being exempt from taxation, sold after October 1st,
cannot be taxed to the purchaser till the ensuing year, 33.

only corporate property, or escaped or omitted property can
be assessed after October 1st, 33.

the October limit fixed in city charter, arbitrary and con-
clusive, 33.

COAL TAX UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

the Act of 1872, imposing a tax per ton on coal mined in this

state, in violation of Bill of Rights and Federal Consti-

tion, 34.
taxation of a mining company's capital stock exempts all its

otker property, 35.

COLLATERAL INHERITANCE TAX.

the collateral inheritance tax is legal whether it affects resi-
dents or non-residents, 34-35.

power of state to impose the tax, unquestioned, 35.

the tax is on value of property at time of transfer to bene-
ficiary, 35.

if an executor fails to retain the tax, it may be collected
from the legatee, 35.

230 Index

CONSTRUCTIVE SITUS.

counties and cities have authority to assess where the prop-
erty has a constructive situs within their bounds, 97.

CORPORATIONS CANNOT BE DISTRAINED FOR TAXES.

corporations must pay taxes on stock, but distraint not author-
ized, 40.

judgment must be obtained, and execution issued for delin-
quent taxes on shares, 41.

corporation owes the money, not as tax payer, but as tax col-
lector, 41.

CORPORATION BONDS SECURED BY STATE MORT-
GAGES, TAXABLE,
the Legislature authorized to tax corporation bonds and ex-
empt individual bonds, 42.
no doubt such bonds are liable to taxation under Code, Art.

81, Sec. 2, 43.
unless discriminations are arbitrary, courts have no control
of question, 42.

CORPORATION'S FAILURE TO WITHOLD TAXES.

when a corporation fails to retain taxes due on shares, it
becomes liable therefor, 43.

CORPORATION'S GROUND RENTS.

ground rents owned by a corporation are not a part of its

real estate, 44.
only value of lands directly assessable to corporation to be
deducted from stock value, 45.

CORPORATION MORTGAGES NOT EXEMPT.

mortgage exemption, Act of 1870, applies only to the mort-
gage securities themselves, 47-
no application to capital stock of corporations. 47.
Legislature intended to exempt only mortgage debt, as such,

47-
exemption applies to mortgages containing a covenant to

repay, 47.

CORPORATION OWNED MACHINERY.

machinery owned by a corporation is not assessable as a
part of the real estate. 98.

Index 231

CORPORATION OWNED MACHINERY— Continued.
mandamus may issue against such action, 98.
must be valued as a part of the aggregate value of shares, 98.

CORPORATION REAL ESTATE IMPROVEMENTS.

improvements on real estate of corporations completed before
January I, may be assessed for the ensuing year, 112.

CORPORATION STATEMENTS.

purpose of the statute to fix a definite time for filing, 48.
first day of January the time as of which returns are to be

made, 48.
all valuations to be made as of that date, 48.

CORPORATION TAXES.

corporation taxes payable to state Treasurer, 49.

not payable to local collectors, 49.

state may enforce payment by mandamus. 49.

taxes on shares of stock due and payable November 1, 49.

CORRECTING ERRORS.

when a taxpayer knows of an error in the assessment against
him, he should apply to have it corrected, 66.

CORRECTNESS OF ASSESSMENTS.

the law presumes the correctness of assessments, 21.

COUNTY BOARDS OF CONTROL.

appeals from county boards of control allowed only when

property is exempt, 9.
when taxpayer alleges he is not the owner, 9.

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CANNOT TAX ROLLING
STOCK.

the law provides a special mode of assessing rolling stock. 49.
commissioners not authorized to levy taxes thereon. 49.

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO REFUND.

taxes paid on an erroneous assessment, must be repaid, 50.
if commissioners decline to refund, taxpayer may resort to
mandamus, 50.

232 Index

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS— POWERS AND DUTIES IN
THE LEVYING OF TAXES.

see POWERS OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, 122.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CANNOT TAX ROLL-
ING STOCK, 49.

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS POWER TO REFUND,

49-

commissioners have the exclusive power to levy and collect
taxes, 125.

in some cases they may value and assess, 125.

their action conclusive and cannot be received by a Court of
Equity, 125.

collection of taxes not to be interfered with for mere irregu-
larities, 125.

no injunction remedy when there is an appellate tribunal, 125.

commissioners may be restrained from levying taxes not
authorized by law, 124.

ample power to revalue previously assessed property, 124.

essential that the owner should have a notice in each case, 124.

commissioners cannot change the method of assessment, 125.

may levy taxes to pay for fire-proof vault to preserve county
records, 122.

"DEBTS" AND "TAXES."

a debt is a money obligation of a person, incurred in his

private capacity. 51.
a tax is a burden put upon a person for public use. 51.

DEDICATION OF STREETS.

to make streets public, their dedication must be accepted as

provided by law, 104.
the adoption of a new charter by a municipality does not
operate as acceptance of all dedicated streets, 104.

DEFECTIVE NOTICE RENDERS TAX SALE VOID.

a tax sale made without due notice to the delinquent is illegal

and void, 52.
collector must deliver a copy of each tax bill, or leave at

residence, 53.
failure to do either, fatal to legality of sale, 53.

Index 233

DEPOSITS IN SAVINGS BANKS INVESTED EN (ikOUND
RENTS.

savings bank deposits invested in ground rents arc not tax-
able, 54.
such a tax would subject the same property to double taxa-
tion, 54.

DISTILLED SPIRITS.

the same rate of taxation shall be imposed on distilled spirits
as on other personal property in the state, 56.

tax on distilled spirits is on owner, not on property, 56.

distiller is agent of state to collect the taxes, 57.

tax collector cannot enforce payment by distraint on dis-
tiller, 57.

any agent or custodian paying tax on distilled spirits shall
have a lien on the same, covered by such tax. 57.

DOMICILE THE TEST OF TAXIBILITY.

see "RESIDENCE" AND "DOMICILE;' 138.

RESIDENCE IS WHERE ONE RESIDES THE

GREATER PART OF THE YEAR, 138.
RESIDENCE NOT DEPENDENT ON INTENTION,

140.
RESIDENTS WHO REMOVE AFTER LEVY, AS-
S ESS ABLE, 142.
property has its habitat at the domicile of the owner, 57.
possession of personal property follows owner wherever he

may be domiciled, 56.
mere intention to change a domicile will not exempt from

taxation, 56.
actual removal must be made before the annual levy, 56.

DOUBLE TAXATION.

double taxation is forbidden by the State Constitution, 56.
a double tax is not necessarily void; if it does not destroy
equality, it isr not invalid, 58.

DOUBT IN FAVOR OF STATE.

in case of doubt as to an exemption, the doubt must be re-
solved in favor of the State, 23.

234 Index

EASEMENTS OF THE GAS COMPANY TAXABLE.

property which Consolidated Gas Company has in Baltimore

highways, an easement assessable as real estate, 59.
an easement is essentially an interest in land, 59.
value of an easement has no necessary relation to value of

land in the neighborhood, 61.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING COMPANY NOT A "MANUFACTUR-
ING INDUSTRY."
not the kind of enterprise meant by the phrase manufacturing

industry, 63.
an unwarranted construction of the law, 63.

EQUITY JURISDICTION IN TAX CASES.

see INJUNCTIONS NOT ISSUED WHEN THERE IS
ANOTHER REMEDY, 83.

equity will not intervene by injunction when there is another
adequate remedy, 64.

an equity court may enjoin the Appeal Tax Court from
erroneously classifying Annex property, 64.

a Court of Equity may restrain the illegal levying of a tax, 64.

when property is in the control of an Equity Court, the pay-
ment of taxes must be by its authority, 65.

collectors must apply to the court to authorize payment of
taxes, 65.

taxes due on insolvent estate are payable out of fund in
hands of receiver, 65.

EQUITABLE INTEREST IN PROPERTY.

resident owner of an equitable interest in property shall pay

taxes on it, 120.
though the legal title is in the name of a non-resident, 120.

ERROR AS TO NAME IN ASSESSMENT.

when a person or company is aware that there is error in

the name, injunction will not issue, 66.
application should be made for a correction of the mistake, 66.

ERRORS OF TAX OFFICIALS.

errors, omissions and irregularities may be corrected by tax
officials by means which the law provides, 66.

Index 235

ESCAPED PROPERTY.

see OMITTED PROPERTY, 113.

may be placed in tax books after the levy has been made, 67.
absence from levy will not affect rights of state, 67.
owner not released thereby, 67.

EVIDENCE IN TAX APPEALS.

in tax hearings or appeals, assessors may mention sales,
leases and mortgages of similar property on which he
based valuation, 67.

this, although he has only been informed of such sales, etc.,
and has no personal knowledge of them. 67.

plats made by the Appeal Tax Court are admissible in evi-
dence, 67.

EXECUTORS.

see ADMINISTRATORS AND EXECUTORS, 3-4.

EXEMPTIONS FROM TAXATION.

exemptions from taxation must be strictly construed, 68.

exemption of cemetery property does not include a fund
invested in stocks, 68.

only the buildings of charitable institutions reasonably nec-
essary are exempt, 68.

any part of building rented out or otherwise used is tax-
able, 68.

stocks and other investments assessable, 68.

exemptions have no application to a paving tax, 69.

a law making an arbitrary exemption is invalid, 69.

partial occupancy of a graveyard with graves, exempts the
whole, 69.

personal property exemptions of domestic corporations do
not extend to foreign companies, 69.

a railroad, subject to taxation, purchased by a raailroad that
is exempt, is still taxable, 70.

EXEMPTIONS MUST BE EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED.

a city has no right to make a contract exempting a factory

for fifty years, 100.
the authority to exempt from taxation can only be conferred
by the Legislature, 100.

236 Index

EXPERT WITNESS IN TAX CASES.

student of taxation is qualified to testify as an expert wit-
ness, 61.

FIRMS. NOT PARTNERS, ASSESSABLE.

partnership assets should be assessed against the firm, 76.
improper to assess the individual members of a firm, 76.

FOREIGN CORPORATIONS SUBJECT TO STATE LAWS.

foreign corporations doing business in this state liable to suit

in state courts, 70.
held to same restrictions and duties as domestic corporations,

70.
cannot claim any other or greater rights. 70.

FOREIGN OWNED SECURITIES.

shares of stock in domestic corporations owned by non-resi-
dents payable at principal office of company. 71.

the corporation required to pay tax and charge amount to
shareowners. 71.

held by courts that such shares are situated in this state. 71.

situs of the stock fixed by statute. 71.

notice to non-resident shareholder not necessary, 71.

notice to corporation sufficient, 71.

exemption of shares in domestic corporations does not apply
to non-resident owners. 71-72.

when money and credits of non-resident are taxable in Mary-
land, 72.

if controlled by local agent they may be assessed. 72.

FRANCHISE.

defined by court to be a special privilege conferred by the

state, 72.
in one sense, a franchise is property, 72.
but not property in meaning of the Bill of Rights. 72.

FRANCHISE AND EASEMENT.

the right to occupy the streets with gas mains is a fran-
chise, 74.

the actual occupation of streets with mains is an easement in
land, 74.

Index 237

GOODS "PERMANENTLY LOCATED."

goods in stock, for sale, are permanently located, 75.
meaning and intent of constitutional provision as to loca-
tion of goods and chattels, 75.

GROSS RECEIPTS TAX NOT A DOUBLE TAX.

the tax on shares is a tax against individual owners, 77.
the gross receipt tax is a tax against the corporation, 77.
therefore, the gross receipt tax is not a double tax, 77.
a gross receipt tax is not a tax on goods transported, 78.
not in conflict with right of Congress to regulate commerce,

78.
a gross receipt tax is a tax on the franchise of a company,

measured by its business, 78.

I GROUND RENT INVESTMENTS.

landlord's interest in the land is a form of money invest-
ment, 46.
analagous to that secured by a mortgage, 46.
it is the fee simple in the land that is assessed, 46.

I GROUND RENT INVESTMENTS BY SAVINGS BANKS.

savings bank deposits invested in ground rents are not tax-
able. 78.

as leasehold owner pays tax, a further burden would be a
double tax, 79.

I GUARANTY COMPANY GROSS RECEIPTS TAX.

limited to gross receipts within the state. 72.
receipts from without the state not taxable. 72.

j GUARDIANS RESPONSIBLE FOR TAXES:

see NON-RESIDENT GUARDIAN AND HARD. 106.

the bond of a guardian is liable for taxes due on property in

his hands, 79.
liability continues after final account and property has been

delivered to the ward, 79.

I HEARSAY EVIDENCE IN ARRIVING AT V M.UATIONS.

assessors may be guided by information received from others

as to sales and rentals, 79.
knowledge of the best experts derived from hearsay.
an assessor may give the reasons for his judgment, 80.

238 Index

HEARINGS.

every taxpayer is entitled to a full and fair hearing, 9.
when his property is assessed, 9.
when assessment is increased, 9.

and in the Annex, before an increased rate of taxation is
imposed, 9.

HOSPITALS UNDER STATE MANAGEMENT.

hospitals under state management not assessable, 81.

INCREASE OF ASSESSMENT ON LAND IN EQUITY COURT.

assessment of property may be revised while in hands of
Equity Court, 83.

permission of Equity Court not needed by taxing authori-
ties, 83.

trustee not entitled to injunction, 83.

his remedy in appellate court, 83.

INJUNCTIONS NOT ISSUED WHEN THERE IS ANOTHER
REMEDY,
aggrieved taxpayers must appeal to courts, 83.
no injunction given when tax is illegal, 83.
nor even when taxing tribunal exceeds its powers, 83.
the appellate court the proper one to review irregularities. 84.
only the failure to give the prescribed notice gives jurisdic-
tion to the Circuit Court, 84.

INSOLVENT CORPORATION TAXES.

taxes due are a prior lien on assets, 84.

taxes must be paid whether share owners get dividends or
not, 84.

INSOLVENT ESTATE.

taxes due on property of insolvent estate are payable by

receiver, 65.
payment to be made out of any fund in his hands, 65.

INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE.

settled doctrine that in construing a law the intent of the
Legislature should prevail and be followed, 73.

INTEREST BEARING DEPOSITS TAXABLE.

deposits of cash in bank (not savings) and trust companies
are assessable, 84.

Index 239

INTEREST ON TAX BILLS.

after tax bills become in arrears, they bear interest at 6 per
centum, 85.

INVALIDITY OF ARBITRARY EXEMPTION LAWS.

see EXEMPTIONS FROM TAXATION, 67.

exemption of property belonging to a particular church,
illegal, 86.

declared to be an arbitrary selection, 86.

void because it violates Article 3 of the State Constitution, 87.

the law cannot discriminate in the laying of taxes, 87.

unreasonable classification prohibited by Fourteenth Amend-
ment, 87.

•

INVALIDITY OF STATUTE GIVING COUNTY THE TAXES
ON PERSONAL SHARES.

Legislature cannot give to county all taxes on shares of local

corporation, 88.
the situs of each share of stock is where the owner resides, 88.
any other method violation of the State Constitution, 88.
no special law allowable for a case covered by a general
law, 88.

ITEMIZING STOCKS OF GOODS NOT REQUIRED.

it is not necessary for assessor to itemize the stock in trade,

88.
the value of the stock is the proper assessment thereon, 88.

JURISDICTION OF CIRCUIT COURTS.

they have no power to enjoin state officials beyond their cir-
cuits, 89.

parties to be affected must be within court's jurisdiction, 90.

Circuit courts cannot restrain tax officials of the state not in
their county, 90.

no such power found in Constitution or statutes, 91.

any other rule would cripple efficiency of officials, 91.

KERBSTONES.

it is not necessary, nor usual, to kerb an alley as a boundary

to a block, 29.
streets paved with vitrified bricks without kerbstones, are

proper boundaries, 29.

240 Index

LAND UNDER WATER.

the title to land under water is in the state, 91.
not subject to taxation, 91.'

when the riparian owner reclaims land it may be assessed to
him, 91-93.

LANDED PROPERTY.

defined to be real estate, whether in fee simple, leasehold,
improved or unimproved, 92.

LEGISLATIVE LEVY.

where an Act prescribes the method and rate of bank stock

taxation, it is a legislative levy, 21.
assessments may be made by legislative -Act as well as by tax

officials, 15.

LEGATEES LIABLE.

where the executor fails to withold the collateral inheritance
tax, the state may recover from the legatees. 37.

"LEVY" DE FINED.

meaning of the word as defined by the Court of Appeals, 92.

LEVY OF TAXES BY DE FACTO OFFICIALS.

acts of de facto tax officials valid. 93.

tax levy made by such officials binding on taxpayers. 93.

they were authorized by law to adopt the assessment made by

state officials, 94.
not necessary to appoint persons to value taxable property, 94.

LICENSE TAXES.

a license tax is a tax on a business, not on property, 94.

LIENS FOR TAXES.

all taxes shall be liens on the real estate of persons owing

the taxes, 94.
taxes are not a lien on personal property, 94.

LIMITATIONS MUST BE PLEADED.

unless the four year limitation on taxes is plead, the lien still

exists, 95.
and the collector may proceed to sell the property. 95.

Index 241

i
LIST OF STOCKHOLDERS BY CORPORATIONS.

see STOCK LISTS, 155.

every state corporation must furnish a list of its share own-
ers, 95-96.

in case of corporations failure to so furnish, mandamus may
issue, 96.

the law express and mandatory, 96.

names, residence and number of shares respectively owned
must be furnished tax authorities, 96.

purpose of the law, 96.

agreement which Appeal Tax Court may make as to the
stock list, 96.

LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF CORPORATE SHARES.

counties have right to assess all corporate property that have
a situs therein, 97.

situs may be actual or constructive, 97.

all shares assessable in county in which corporation has prin-
cipal office, 97.

corporation to charge same to accounts of respective owners,
98.

LOCAL IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENTS.

legislative power to lay special taxes on local improvements,

12.
may impose assessment for roads and streets, 12.
executed consideration for a public work may be assessed, 12.

MACHINERY OF CORPORATIONS.

the machinery of a corporation is not taxable as part of the
real estate, 98.

in case it is so taxed, mandamus may issue for aggrieved tax-
payer, 98.

machinery to be valued as a part of the aggregate value of
shares, 98.

MARKET VALUE OF SHARES.

market price a fair index of the value of securities, 99.

the best method of ascertaining actual value of current

stocks, 99.
true of all stocks quoted on the stock exchanges, 99.

242 Index

MARKET VALUE OF SHARES— Continued.

value of any article what it will bring at a fair sale, 99.
the book values of stocks not a true guide, 100.

MORTGAGE BONDS.

, mortgage bonds are taxable to the owners, and not to the
corporation, 100.

MORTGAGOR TAXABLE ON MORTGAGED PROPERTY,
mortgaged property is assessable to the mortgagor, 100.
tax has no reference to mortgage liens, 100.

MORTGAGES TO SECURE RAILROAD BONDS.

railroad mortgage to secure bonds sold to investors not tax-
able, 101.

MUNICIPALITY HAS NO POWER TO EXEMPT.

a city's right to exempt from taxation dependent on express

legislative authority, 102.
no power to make contract exempting factory for fifty years,
102.

MUNICIPALITY'S SHARE OF STATE SECURITY TAX.

a municipal corporation in a county is entitled to one-half of
state tax on resident bond owners, 102.

NAVAL ACADEMY OFFICERS EXEMPT.

personal property of officers and agents of Federal govern-
ment within Naval Academy grounds not taxable, 68.

NEW IMPROVEMENTS ASSESSABLE ON COMPLETION-
new improvements become assessable for the ensuing year,
when the plastering and woodwork have been substan-
tially completed before October 1st, 104.
improvements on real estate of corporation completed prior
to January 1, are liable to taxation for the ensuing year,

113.

NEWLY DISCOVERED PROPERTY.

may be assessed after the prescribed time for making the
annual levy, 105.

Index 243

NO ASSESSMENT VOID.

no assessment can be declared void, but the City Court must
order a new assessment, 105.

NON-RESIDENT GUARDIAN AND WARD.

property of a ward is taxable in the county where guardian

was appointed, 106.
property taxable, although guardian and ward reside in
another county, 106.

NORTHERN CENTRAL ROLLING STOCK.
assessable in Baltimore, 106.

the home office of the company being in that city, 106.
assessable not as real estate, but as personal property, 106.
its situs where principal office is situated, 106.

NORTHERN CENTRAL GROSS RECEIPT TAX.

the Act of 1890 repealed the exemption from payment of
gross receipts tax granted by previous Legislature to
Northern Central Railway, 38.

NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.

owner must be notified before he is assessed, 106. .

notice by written or printed summons, 106.

requirement of notice contemplates a hearing before action

by tax tribunal, 106.
both essential to the validity of every assessment, 107.
a rule founded on national justice. 107.
a certain day must be appointed for a hearing, 108.
notice must be served on owner or left at his place of abode

ten days before hearing, 109.
if owner cannot be found, notice must be left with person in

possession, 109.
if it be land, and no one in occupancy, notice must be posted

on land, no.
in classifying Annex property in Baltimore, "due notice" does

not mean personal service, 109.
in such case, a notice left at each house is sufficient, 109.
notice is not necessary where the Legislature has fixed the

amount of the tax, 109.

244 Index

NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD— Continued.
in assessing state corporation shares, notice to the corpor-
ation is sufficient, 108.
notice to non-resident share-holders not necessary, 108.

OBLIGATIONS OF OTHER STATES TAXABLE.

see STATE'S ONLY TAXING RESTRAINT, 154.
obligations of other states are taxable in Maryland, III.
though exempt in the states where issued. III.
contract of exemption limited to the state granting it, in.
property of owner subject to powers of state wherein he

resides, ill.
situs of such stock is where holder has his domicile, in.
a legislative and not a judicial question, in.

OCTOBER CLAUSE.

in Baltimore, no property, other than corporate property, not

subject to taxation October 1, can enter into the taxable

basis for the ensuing year. in.
cannot be assessed, though it become subject to taxation the

next day, 112.
the point of time and rule of law arbitrary, 112.
final and conclusive, 112.

necessity of having a pointed time for final valuations, 112.
does not include escaped or omitted property. 112.

OMITTED PROPERTY.

see ESCAPED PROPERTY, 67.

property not put on assessment books prior to annual levy

in the counties may be subsequently added during the

current year, 113.
in Baltimore (under charter provision), omitted property may

be assessed for back taxes when discovered, 114.
interest and penalties shall be added to the tax bills for back

years, 114.

OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.

opportunity to be heard is essential to validity of every assess-
ment, 107.
a right founded on fundamental principle, 107.
a day must be appointed for a hearing. 108.

Index -545

OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD— Continued.

a written or printed summons necessary, giving ten days'

notice, 108.
notice rriust be personally served or left at residence, 109.
if person cannot be found, notice must be left with party ia

possession, 109.

OWNERS OF SHARES TAXED.

the tax on shares is a tax on the owners, though the corpor-
ation pays the tax, 40.

OWNER MAY INSPECT RECORDS.

owners shall, at all times, have access to the records of assess-
ment on their property, 114.

PALACE AND SLEEPING CARS NOT TAXABLE IN MARY-
LAND.

such cars belong to an Illinois corporation, and not assessable

in this state, 115.
question definitely setled in several cases, 115.

PARTIALLY CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS LIABLE TO
TAXATION.

buildings devoted to both hospital and secular purposes sub-
ject to taxation, 116.
net income may be capitalized as basis of assessment.

PARTNERSHIPS TO BE ASSESSED.

a partnership should be assessed in the firm name and not
individually, 76.

PATENT RIGHTS THAT CONSTITUTE THE BASIS OF
STOCK VALUES,
corporation shares, deriving chiefly from patent rights are

taxable, 116.
value of patents not to be subtracted from value of shares,

116.
such tax not in violation of Federal Constitution, 116.

PAVING TAX LAWFUL EXERCISE OF LEGISLATIVE
POWER.
Baltimore special paving tax Act not unconstitutional, 117.
based on principle of benefit to abutting property owner, 117.
not void because tax goes into a general paving fund, 117.

246 Index

PAVING TAX ON PROPERTY NOT ON OWNER.

a paving tax in Baltimore is imposed on property, not on

owner, 117.
the city may maintain a legal action against the owner for
the tax, 117.

PENALTY OF EVASION.

owners of bonds or other evidence of debt failing to. make

return, cannot recover until taxes are paid, 117.
liable to pay 50 per centum additional from time taxes
accrued, 117.

PROPERTY HELD IN TRUST ASSESSED AT RESIDENCE
OF CESTUI QUE TRUST,
constitutionality of Act of 1902 upheld, 119.
situs of property held in trust fixed at residence of bene-
ficial owner, 119.

PERSONAL PROPERTY OF CEMETERY COMPANY TAX-
ABLE,
property of a cemetery, such as carts, horses, etc., is subject
to assessment, 120.

PERSONS, NOT PROPERTY, TAXED,
in this state no property is taxed, 120.
all assessment against the person, 120.
taxes levied not on things, but on owners of things, 120.
cannot be otherwise under Bill of Rights, 120.

PIERS EXTENDING INTO RIVER BEYOND CITY LIMITS
ARE ASSESSABLE.

limits of Baltimore coincident with improvement bounding on

river, 121.
piers of no value if without right to use land in Baltimore,
121.

are taxable by the city, 122.

and also because they receive fire and police protection from
city, 121.

POWERS AND DUTIES OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IN
THE LEVYING OF TAXES,
see COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CANNOT TAX ROLL-
ING STOCK, 49.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO REFUND. 50.

Index 247

POWER OF APPEAL TAX COURT TO CLASSIFY.

Appeal Tax Court has ample authority to classify annex

property, 126.
as subject to the full city rate, 126.

when developments justify under Acts of 1888 and 1892, 126.
Appeal Tax Court has power to give necessary notice and

hearings to property owners, 126.

POWER OF LEGISLATURE TO EXEMPT.

see EXEMPTIONS FROM TAXATION, 67.
the Bill of Rights no bar to the granting of exemptions. 126.
Legislature may exempt when there is no arbitrary discrimi-
nation, 126.

PRIVATE STREETS AS BOUNDARIES.

not essential that block boundaries shall be public streets, 30.
city may tax block bounded by private thoroughfares, 30.

PRIVATE ALLEYS ASSESSABLE.

where owner conveys part of land, leaving an alley for com-
mon use, the alley is assessable to grantor, 126.
not exempted on account of easement on it, 126.

PROMISE TO PAY TAXES BARS THE FOUR-YEAR LIMIT,
taxes uncollected four years after levy, are not barred if

debtor promises to pay.
Collector has right to proceed with the sale of the property,

127.

PROPERTY OF WARD.

the property of a ward is taxable in the county where situ-
ated, 106.
taxable there, though guardian and ward live in another
county, 106.

PROPER NOTICE PRESUMED.

in complaints by aggrieved taxpayer, it will be presumed that
proper notice was given, 1.

PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND TAXES THEREON LEFT
TO MUNICIPALITIES,
see ASSESSMENTS FOR SPECIAL BENEFITS, 10.
the question as to whether paving a street wilt improve prop-
erty is left to judgment of the city, 127.

248 Index

PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND TAXES THEREON LEFT
TO MUNICIPALITIES— Continued.

courts have no authority in the premises, 127.

cannot review action of city officials, 127.

but assessment therefor must be reasonable and equal, 127.

when they fail in this respect, they are an extortion. 127.

the presumption is that those assessed are benefited, 127.

PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS NOT INVALID BECAUSE CON-
TRACTORS DID NOT EXECUTE CONTRACT STRICTLY
ACCORDING TO TERMS. 129.

the accomplishment of the desired object is the vital feature

of a contract, 130.
the mere mode of attaining that object in paving a street

makes no practical difference, 130.
not material whether stones are pressed or driven to a solid

foundation, 130.
or whether a rammer or steam roller is used.

PURPOSE OF THE "LANDED PROPERTY" ACT OF 1902,
RELATING TO ANNEXED TERRITORY.

see ANNEX BLOCK BOUNDARIES, 5.

ANNEX PROPERTY— WHEN LIABLE FOR FULL

CITY RATE, 7.
ANNEXATION ACT NOT A CONTRACT, 8.
"BLOCK OF GROUND;' 24.

landed property defined to be real estate in fee simple or
leasehold, improved <>r unimproved, 131.

object of the Act was to prevent full city rate until facts
justified, 132.

not intended to affect real estate that was already city prop-
erty, 132.

the two conditions under which full city rate may be im-
posed, 132.

RAILROAD EXEMPTION NOT TRANSFERABLE,
see EXEMPTIONS FROM TAXATION, 67.
an exemption from taxation of a railroad cannot be trans-
ferred to another corporation, 132.

Index 249

RAILROAD ROLLING STOCK NOT ASSESSABLE WHEN
ITS PRINCIPPAL OFFICE IS OUT OF STATE

see ROLLING STOCK, 143.

domicile of railroad company where its main office is situ-
ated, 133.
taxable situs of rolling stock cannot be elsewhere. 133.
a depot and station in Baltimore does not establish a situs, 133.

RAILROAD MORTGAGES.

railroad mortgages to secure bonds sold to investors are not
taxable, 103.

RAILROAD TAXABLE AS LESSEE.

a railroad company holding a 90-year lease on land is tax-
able for it, 133.
company is substantial owner of the leasehold interest, 134.

RAILROAD TUNNELS AND BRIDGES NOT SEPARATELY
ASSESSABLE.

tunnels and bridges in the line of the road are not objects of

separate valuation, 134.
only the road as such can be assessed, 134.
and the part in the tunnel at the same rate as other parts, 134.

REAL ESTATE OWNED BY STATE CORPORATIONS.

the State Tax Commisisoner properly included New Jersey

land in valuing state corporation shares, 07.
though this land contributed largely to the value of the stock.

97-

REAL ESTATE TO BE ASSESSED AT ACTUAL VALUE
WITHOUT REGARD TO MORTGAGE LIENS.

mortgaged real estate should be assessed at its actual value,

135.
mortgages not to be considered, 135.
not in violation of Bill of Rights, 136.

RECEIVER'S LIABILITY FOR TAXES.

when property is under equity control, the ordinary tax

remedies are suspended,
payment can only be secured on order of the court, 135.
collectors should apply to the court for payment of taxes, 135.

250 Index

RECEIVER'S LIABILITY FOR TAXES— Continued.

when he fails to apply, he cannot recover penalty from the
receiver, 135.

RECEIVER OF INSOLVENT ESTATE.

it is the duty of receiver of insolvent estate to pay taxes out
of funds in his hands, 65.

RECLASSIFICATION NOTICE.

authority of the Appeal Tax Court to increase the rate in

the annex, 137.

must first give notice, 137.

a taxpayer who has not received proper notice is entitled to

an injunction, 137.
notice does not mean personal service, 137.
notices left at each house is sufficient, 137.

RECOVERY BY TAXPAYER.

when taxes are improperly paid to county instead of city, if
latter compels second payment, taxpayer may recover
from county, 51.

REFUNDING TAXES ERRONEOUSLY PAID. -

statute authorizes County Commissioners to refund money

erroneously paid as taxes, 51.
but no such statute applicable to Baltimore city, 51.

REGISTRATION DOES NOT DETERMINE RESIDENCE.

the sole fact that a person's name appears on the registration
list does not determine his residence, 138.

REMEDY OF AGGRIEVED TAXPAYER.

where the law has provided an adequate remedy for aggrieved
taxpayer, equity will not interfere, 64.

"RESIDENCE" AND "DOMICILE."

see DOMICILE THE TEST OF TAXABILITY, 57.
a broad distinction between the two words, 138.
domicile signifies a person's civil status and rights of prop-
erty, 138.
residence is a qualification for political rights, 138.

Index 251

RESIDENCE IS WHERE ONE RESIDES THE GREATER
PART OF THE YEAR.

State Constitution so provides, i3<>.
where taxes may be levied, 139.

RESIDENCE ISSUES ARISING IN DECEDENTS' ESTATES,
a will must be probated where testator resided. 139.
the right to admit the will depends on residence.

RESIDENCE NOT DEPENDENT ON INTENTION.

a change of residence cannot be effected by intention alone,

140.
a declaration of intention will not be sufficient, 140.
the burden of proof is on the party claiming to have made a

change, 141.
temporary absence, though long extended, will not deprive

one of his residence, 141.

RESIDENCE OF CESTUI QUE TRUST SITUS FOR TAX-
ATION, 118.

see PERSONAL PROPERTY HELD IN TRUST SHALL
BE ASSESSED AT RESIDENCE OF THE CESTUI
QUE TRUST.

RESIDENCE OF CORPORATIONS.

a corporation is a resident of Hie state in which it was incor-
porated, 141.
must be treated as a natural person would be who resides in
such state, 141.

RESIDENCE OF STUDENTS.

in absence of other proof, the law presumes that students
intend to return to their former residence, 142.

RESIDENTS WHO REMOVE AFTER LEVY ARE ASSESS-
ABLE.

continued residence in a county means continued liability to

taxation, 142.
if person does not remove before the levy of taxes, he if
chargeable for that year, 142.

252 Index

RIGHT TO ASSESS FOR PARTICULAR BENEFITS.

see PAVING TAX LAW A VALID EXERCISE OF

LEGISLATIVE POWER, 116.
special benefit assessments sanctioned in all the states, 142.
power expressly granted to the City of Baltimore, 142.

RIGHT OF TAXATION.

the right of taxation is never presumed to be relinquished by
the state, 23.

RIPARIAN OWNER.

a person owning land on bank of stream may make improve-
ments into the water, 91.
after he so reclaims the land, it may be assessed to him, 91.
until he so does, the land under water belongs to state, and is
not taxable, 91.

ROLLING STOCK ASSESSMENTS.

rolling stock of railroads assessable where its leg?.l situs, is,

143.
to be divided among the counties and City of Baltimore, 143.
according to the mileage located in each, 143.
State Tax Commission shall make the apportionment, 143.
the proportions then to be valued in Baltimore and in each

county, 143.

SALES AND RENTALS.

sales and rentals in neighborhood to be considered by real
estate assessor, 79.

information received from others may be used in fixing valu-
ations, 80.

SAVINGS BANK TAX A TAX ON THE FRANCHISE AND
NOT ON THE PROPERTY OF BANKS.

the tax on savings banks not an arbitrary burden, 144.
not a tax on deposits, 144.
but on the bank franchise, 144.

Savings bank investmeint in securities not taxable, 144.
deposits invested in ground rents not taxable, 145.
money deposits in foreign savings banks, owned by residents,
assessable here, 145.

Index 253

SAVINGS BANK GROUND RENTS NOT TAXABLE.

the deposits in savings banks invested in ground rents are

not taxable, 78.
to so tax them would be imposing a double tax, 78.

SCHEDULES OF PERSONAL PROPERTY.

all persons obliged to give account of their personal property

when required by the tax officials of city of county. 146.
duty of authorities to make assessment on best information
attainable, 146.

SECURITIES ASSESSABLE AT MARKET VALUE.

all bonds and other securities to be assessed at market value,

146.
taxes in corporate stock can be levied only on valuations by
the State Tax Commission, T46.

SECURITIES OWNED BY SCHOOLS NOT EXEMPT.

stocks owned by a school, income being used for benefit of
students, are taxable, 147.

SHARES OF STOCK AND OTHER CORPORATE PROP-
ERTY SEPARATE AND DISTINCT.

shares and property of state corporations may both be taxed
in hands of respective owners, 147.

SHARES OF STOCK AS VALUED BY STATE TAX COM-
MISSION BINDING ON COUNTIES AND CITIES.

the only valuation on which county and municipal taxes can

be levied, 148.
each shareholder to be assessed accordingly, 148.
though the company is required to pay the tax, 148.
and to charge the same to shareholders, 148.
a notice to each shareholder not necessary, 149.
such requirement would make annual valuation impossible,

149.
entry of names of shareholders together on books, 149.
sufficient compliance with the statute, 149.

254 Index

SINGLE TAX DECLARED TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL,
BECAUSE OF ITS EXEMPTION OF PERSONAL PROP-
ERTY.

contrary to the Declaration of Rights, 150.
which requires uniform taxation of all persons, 150.
unlawful to impose the whole tax on land, 150.
the land would cease to be of value, 150...
exemption of personal property renders such a law null and
void. 150.

SITUS OF PERSONAL PROPERTY.

the situs of intangible property is where the holder lives, 150.
shares of domestic corporations so taxable, 151.
goods and chattels assessable where located, 151.

SOVEREIGN POWER OF TAXATION.

annexation Act of 1888 a grant of the sovereign power of
taxation to Baltimore City, 8.

SPECIAL TAXES— POWER OF LEGISLATURE TO IMPOSE.

cost of street may be improved in whole or in part on abutt-
ing property, 151.

municipalities may be so empowered, 151.

act cannot be defeated on ground that no benefits are re-
cevied, 151.

the front foot apportionment approved, 152.

STATE AND MUNICIPAL TAXES,
not necesarily on same basis, 152.

arbitrary state valuations not to govern local authorities, 152.
"City and municipal taxes" not confined to Baltimore, 152.

STATE TAX COMMISSION.

see ACT OF 19U CREATING THE COMMISSION,

APPENDIX P. 191.
to equalize assessments throughout the state, 153.
to provide for review of all property, 153.
has final determination of assessments, 153.
has power to establish units for assessing property, 153.
to investigate any assessments in the state, 153.
to have access to all assessment books, 153.
judgment of commission shall prevail, 154.

Index 255

STATE TAX COMMISSION— Continued.

to exercise powers and perform duties of former commis-
sioner, 154.
will be board of appeal on questions of fact, 154.
appeals on questions of law to be taken to the courts. 164.

STATES ONLY TAXING RESTRAINT.

the only limitation found in the Federal Constitution, 154.
is the clause prohibiting the laying of imports and duties, or
duty on tonnage, 154.

SHIPS AND OTHER VESSELS.

» see VESSEL ASSESSMENTS, 184.

STATE'S POLICY IN ASSESSING REAL ESTATE.

to assess the fee simple value of land to the holder, 154.
the sub-divided interests not to be separately assessed, 154.
those holding such interests must adjust between themselves,

155-

STOCK EXCHANGE SEAT NOT ASSESSABLE.

a seat on the Baltimore Stock Exchange is not liable to as-
sessment, 155.
not property within meaning of the Bill of Rights. 155.

STOCK LISTS.

banks and corporations must furnish stock lists before March

1, 155-
containing names of stockholders, and shares and residence

of each, 155.
stock of no corporation to be valued at less than value of

real estate and chattels, 153.
real estate statement must be filed at same time, 156.
stock lists not to be disclosed, 156.

STREETS DEFINED.

streets fully graded and paved, 156.

STREET RAILWAY NOT A "RAILROAD."

not a railroad within meaning of the law, 156.

a corporation that must pay taxes on all its stock, 157-

256 Int>ex

SUITS AGAINST EXECUTORS.

see ADMINISTRATORS AND EXECUTORS, 3.
executor may be sued for taxes where he resides or where he
obtains administration, 157.

SURETIES RESPONSIBLE FOR TAXES.

the surety of a guardian is responsible for taxes levied om

ward's property, 79.
liability continues after final account and property has bee«

delivered to the ward, 79.

TAX ADVERTISEMENTS.

must describe identity of property, 157.
but not its quality, 157.

TAX BOOKS ACCESSIBLE TO ALL.

tax books may be inspected by any person without fee, 158.

TAX LAWS TO BE CONSTRUED LIBERALLY.

should be interpreted so as to uphold enactments. 160.

TAX LIMITATIONS.

see LIMITATIONS AGAINST TAXES MUST BE
PLEADED. 95.
TAXES DUE BY TRUSTEES NOT BARRED BY
STATUTE OF LI MI AT IONS. 164.
collection of taxes shall not be enforced after four years
from levy, 161.

TAX SALES.

validity of sales depends on compliance witu the law, 161.
collector should sell only enough land to pay taxes, 161.
sale of a farm to pay insignificant bill, null and void, 161.
collector cannot sell till he has made levy, 162.
a sale without notice is void, 162.

TAX TITLES.

complete title passes to purchaser at tax sale, 162.
all previous liens are extinguished by the sale, 162.

TAXATION OF PROPERTY OWNED BY NON-RESIDENTS,
see DISTILLED SPIRITS, 56.
custodian of distilled spirits shall pay tax for owner, 163.

Index 257

TAXATION OF PROPERTY OWNED BY NON-RESIDENTS
Continued.

whether he lives in or out of state, 163.
a valid exercise of taxing power, 163.

TAXES DUE BY TRUSTEES NOT BARRED BY LIMITA-
TION,
the four-year limitation does not apply to a trust estate, 165.

TAXES IN ARREARS.

taxes are in arrears January I, and suit to collect before that

time cannot be maintained, 166.
in Baltimore, all taxes in arrears on July 1 next ensuing
levy, 167.

TAXES PAID IN ERROR OF LAW NOT REFUNDABLE.

taxes paid under a mistake of law cannot be recovered, 168.
authority of County Commissioners in case of erroneous pay-
ment, 169.

TAXES VOLUNTARILY PAID CANNOT BE RECOVERED.

money voluntarily paid cannot be recovered on plea of mis-
take of law, 171.

scope of Baltimore ordinance authorizing refunds, T70.

intent thereof to refund money paid under mistake of fact,
171.

TAXING POWER OF COUNTIES.

have no inherent power of taxation, 172.
power must be delegated by Legislature. 172.

TAXABLE VALUE OF CORPORATION.

the taxable value of a corporation is its bonded indebtedness,
together with its stock, 42.

THE ACT OF 1888. ANNEXING CERTAIN TERRITORY TO
BALTIMORE CITY NOT A CONTRACT, 172.
see ANNEXATION ACT NOT A CONTRACT, 8.

THIRTY AND FIFTEEN-CENT SECURITY TAX.
see ACT OF 191U, APPENDIX, p. 204.
rate of taxing bonds and other evidences of debt, 175.
non-dividend paying securities not assessable, 176.

258 Index

TIME AT WHICH CORPORATE REAL ESTATE MAY BE
ASSESSED,
see OCTOBER ''FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE" CLAUSE,

III.

improvements completed before January t, are taxable, 180.
though not assessed to corporation previously to October i,
180.

TIME OF ASSESSMENT OF DOMESTIC CORPORATION
SHARES.
Tax Commissioner shall assess such shares by May 1st as of

January ist preceding, 180.
reports required of state corporations, 180.

TOWNS MAY ADOPT ASSESSMENTS.

levy made by town officials on state and county assessments
is legal, 94.

nothing in the law to forbid them from adopting such valu-
ations, 94.

not necessary to appoint persons to assess property subject
to taxation, 94.

TRUE TEST OF TAXABLE VALUE.

the true test of taxable value of a security is the producing
value to the owner, 181.

TRUST ESTATE ASSESSABLE AT RESIDENCE OF BENE-
FICIAL OWNER.

residences of the cestui que trust the situs for taxation, 182.
securities in trust treated as belonging to substantial owners,
182.

TRUSTEE FOR CREDITORS.

trustee bound for taxes on property in his possession, 182.
but not on all taxes due by debtor, 182.

TRUSTEES LIVING IN DIFFERENT COUNTIES.

the property taxable to each in equal proportions, 183.

TURNPIKES AS BOUNDARIES.
see BOUNDARIES, 27.

in classifying property in the Annex, a turnpike may be used
as a boundary, 182.

Index 259

UNLAWFUL LEVY.

Court of Equity will restrain levy of illegal taxes, 65.
any taxpayer entitled to seek relief from unauthorized levy,
65.

UNISSUED SHARES NOT LIABLE TO ASSESSMENT,
no authority for taxing shares of stock not issued, 183.
such stock has no existence and no value, 183.

VESSEL ASSESSMENTS.

all interest in ships and other vessels assessable to owners at

residence, 184.
interest taxable, though engaged in foreign commerce, 184.
vessel has no situs' apart from domicile of owner, 185.
if agent in state represents foreign owner, ships are taxable

here, 185.
ships at sea taxable at home of owner, 185.

UNITED RAILWAYS PARK TAX A SUBSTITUTE FOR
TAXATION ON EASEMENT.

no further assessment than park tax is legal, 187.
except as to certain easements on turnpikes, etc., 187.

VALIDITY OF VERBAL ORDER OF COUNTY COMMIS-
SIONERS,
verbal order of commissioners to collector to pay money

valid, 187.
when collector fails to pay, sureties on his bond held liable,
187.

VALUATION OF SHARES BY TAX COMMISSIONER
FINAL,
valuations of shares by Tax Commissioner final, 18&
even if there was error, courts cannot interfere, 188.
unless it be shown property is exempt, 188.

WARD'S PROPERTY IN POSSESSION OF FOREIGN GUAR-
DIAN,
personal property of a ward in the hands of guardian out of
the state not taxavle, 188.

260 Index

WAREHOUSEMAN'S LIEN.

a warehouseman or other custodian paying tax on distilled

spirits, has lien on same, 57.
may hold goods until he has secured repayment, 57.

WESTERN MARYLAND R. R. ROLLING STOCK ASSESS-
ABLE IN BALTIMORE,
all the rolling stock of the company taxable in Baltimore, 188.
the principal office and depot being in that city
not legal to distribute the value along entire line, 189.
also assessable on leasehold interests it possesses, 189.

THIS BOOK IS DUE <

DN THE LAST DATE

STAMPED BELOW

30ml

■J

^4

/

313156

HJ 3

/j

UNIVERSITY OF CAUFORNIA UBRARY