Anne Arundel County Com'rs v. City of Annapolis
Decision Date | 23 June 1915 |
Docket Number | 32. |
Citation | 95 A. 40,126 Md. 445 |
Parties | ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY COM'RS et al. v. MAYOR, COUNSELOR, AND ALDERMEN OF CITY OF ANNAPOLIS et al. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Anne Arundel County; Jas. R. Brashears Judge.
"To be officially reported."
Suit by the Mayor, Counselor, and Aldermen of the City of Annapolis and Annapolis Water Company against the County Commissioners of Anne Arundel County and Joshua S. Linthicum, late Treasurer. From an order overruling their demurrer to the bill, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Argued before BOYD, C.J., and BRISCOE, BURKE, THOMAS, PATTISON URNER, and STOCKBRIDGE, JJ.
Ridgely P. Melvin and James M. Munroe, both of Annapolis, and Edgar Allan Poe, Atty. Gen., for appellants. Nicholas H. Green and Robert Moss, both of Annapolis, for appellees.
The Annapolis Water Company, one of the appellees, was incorporated by Acts of 1865, c. 123, for the purpose and object of supplying the city of Annapolis with pure water for private and public uses. Its capital stock was limited to 2,000 shares, each of the par value of $500, of which stock the corporation of the city of Annapolis and the state of Maryland were each authorized to subscribe to an amount not to exceed $20,000. The company was to be managed by "a president and four directors" elected by the stockholders, each stockholder being entitled to one vote for every share of stock owned by him. Both the state and city of Annapolis, in the exercise of the authority so conferred upon them, subscribed to the stock of the company and paid in the amounts so subscribed by them, respectively. In addition to this, other stock was taken by persons in their individual capacity. The company was thereafter duly organized, and proceeded to exercise its corporate rights and privileges in accordance with the provisions of the act aforesaid. Thereafter chapter 322 of the Acts of 1904 was passed, providing that:
"The mayor, counselor and aldermen of the city of Annapolis are hereby authorized and empowered to purchase stock of the Annapolis Water Company, in their discretion, whenever the same is for sale, and may borrow for the purchase thereof, and may use said stock as an offset to the debt incurred therefor, and as collateral for the purchase money; provided, that after having purchased stock in the corporate name of the city of Annapolis for the benefit and use of said city, it shall not be alienated or hypothecated for any other debt whatsoever."
Subsequently chapters 86 and 118 of the Acts of 1912 were enacted, both of which were approved on the same day. The first of these provides:
The act also provides for the creation of a sinking fund of $2,100 per annum for the redemption and retirement of said bonds at maturity. And it was further provided in the act that:
"The said mayor, counselor and aldermen of the city of Annapolis are hereby required and directed to maintain such a schedule of charges for water furnished its customers by the Annapolis Water Company, to be uniform in every particular, as will make the profits accruing to said mayor, counselor and aldermen of the city of Annapolis from its interest in the Annapolis Water Company sufficient in each and every year, to create and maintain the sinking fund to redeem and retire said bonds at maturity and to pay the interest thereon when and as the same may be due and payable."
The bill alleges that, in the exercise of the right conferred upon them:
"The mayor, counselor, and aldermen of the city of Annapolis, on the 28th day of December in the year 191...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. City of St. Louis v. Baumann
... ... v. Dickmann, 134 ... S.W.2d 65; State v. Snokomish County, 71 Wash. 320, ... 128 P. 667; Gachet v. New Orleans, 52 ... pp. 1419, 1420, sec. 677; Anne Arundel County Comrs. v ... Mayor, etc., of Annapolis, ... ...
-
State Tax Commission of Md. v. Baltimore Nat. Bank
... ... from Circuit Court of Baltimore City; Joseph N. Ulman, Judge ... unexpressed limitations. Anne Arundel County v ... Annapolis, 126 Md. 445, 95 ... ...