Appeal Tax Court of Baltimore City v. Regents of University of Maryland
| Decision Date | 28 February 1879 |
| Citation | 50 Md. 457 |
| Parties | APPEAL TAX COURT of Baltimore City v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Baltimore City Court.
The appeal in this case was taken by the Appeal Tax Court, from an order of the court below, passed on the 24th of May, 1878 in proceedings instituted by the Regents of the University of Maryland, and by the Faculty of Physic of that University under the Act of 1876, ch. 260, sec. 28, whereby the appellant was directed to strike from the list of property valued and assessed to the appellees, as not subject to taxation, certain property mentioned in the petition of the appellees. The case is further stated in the opinion of the court.
The cause was submitted to BARTOL, C.J., BOWIE, MILLER, ALVEY and ROBINSON, JJ.
A Leo Knott, State's Attorney for Baltimore City, and Charles J. M. Gwinn, Attorney General, for the appellant.
Universities were not mentioned in the General Assessment Act of 1803, ch 92, as entitled to any exemption from taxation. It was, therefore, doubtless apprehended that the University of Maryland, incorporated by the Act of 1812, ch. 159 (November Session), would be subject to taxation under the Act of 1803, ch. 92, unless provision was made for placing it upon the same footing with colleges, which were exempted from taxation under that Act. It was, for this reason, provided in the Act of 1812, ch. 159, sec. 18, incorporating the University, that it should have the immunities which were granted to colleges within this State by the Act of 1803, ch. 92, or which might be granted by any subsequent Act to colleges within this State.
The purpose of sec. 18, it would seem, was only to accord to the new University the same immunities from taxation which were enjoyed by colleges in this State under the general taxing laws of the State. If the immunities of such colleges were extended by a general law, it was, in effect, provided that the new University should have the advantage of such extension. The Act went no further than this. Does it not follow that it was equally the intention of the Legislature that the new University should not enjoy, at any time, greater immunities than all colleges in the State might claim under its general taxing laws?
If this construction of the meaning of the eighteenth section of the Act of 1812, ch. 159 (November Session), be not adopted, we must reach the conclusion that the General Assembly intended that the provision made by the eighteenth section of the charter of the appellees was intended to vest in the appellees an irrevocable right to any immunity granted to colleges, as a class, in any subsequent general Act; and that such immunities, granted originally and thus supplemented, must abide with the appellees, even if the General Assembly should change or repeal the general Act by which one or more of them was granted. It cannot be that this conclusion is right; because such conclusion would give to the appellees far greater advantages than are possessed by any college in this State.
We are necessarily compelled to adhere to the more limited construction of sec. 18 of the Act of 1812, ch. 159 (November Session), and to ask the court to decide that, under that section, the appellees could not, in any year, claim any larger exemption from taxation than could have been claimed by any college in the State in such year. The appellees certainly cannot show that an irrevocable grant of immunity from taxation has been conferred upon the University by the General Assembly in clear and explicit terms, or by necessary implication; and, therefore, the question whether or not the exemption has been granted must be resolved against the presumption of such grant. County Comm'rs v. R. R. Co. 47 Md. 611, 612; R. R. Co. v. Reid, 13 Wall. 266, 267; Baltimore v. R. R. Co. 6 Gill, 292; Baltimore v. State, 15 Md. 391, 392, 467; Buchanan v. County Comm'rs. 47 Md. 293; Bank v. Billings, 4 Pet. 561; Ins. Co. v. Debolt, 16 How. 435; Bank v. Skelly, 1 Black, 446; Delaware Railroad Tax Case, 18 Wall. 226; R. R. Co. v. Maguire, 21 Wall. 61; Tucker v. Ferguson, 22 Wall. 575.
Thomas W. Hall and S. T. Wallis, for the appellees.
By the Act of 1812, ch. 159, sec. 18 (November Session), the appellees were given the advantage of the beneficial exemption in favor of all property, real and personal, owned by colleges, contained in the Act of 1803, ch. 92, and of all exemptions to be given by any future Act, and the same was extended to all of the property, real and personal, which they might subsequently acquire, as well as that belonging to them at the time. The same exemption given by the Act of 1803, ch. 92, was renewed, in terms, by the Act of the same session of 1812, ch. 191, sec. 1 (November Session). The charter itself discloses, not only in its preamble, but in the 19th and 20th sections, the desire of the Legislature to establish the new University under the most favorable conditions, and with every advantage in the legislative gift. The 20th section provides in the strongest and amplest terms, that the Act shall be "construed, reputed and judged, in all cases, most favorably and on the behalf and for the best benefit and behalf of the said Regents and their successors, so as most effectually to answer the valuable ends of this Act of incorporation, towards the general advancement and promotion of the professions, sciences and arts." It does not seem necessary, therefore, to enter into any general discussion of the binding control of tax exemptions, in charters, over future Legislatures. The exemption is given here, as to present and future property, and embraces future as well as existing Acts of exemption. There hardly seems any room for doubt, that it was meant to be a permanent and irrevocable grant, under the rule for the construction of the charter, which the charter itself contains.
There are but two pieces of property exempted. The one, the Baltimore Infirmary, is a "hospital," built in part by money of the State, appropriated by the Act of 1874, ch. 324. The other the Medical College, is "an incorporated educational institution." The infirmary, with its "equipments," is exempted by the Act of 1876, ch. 260, sec. 2. Both the infirmary and the college, with their "furniture," "equipments," and "the ground appurtenant thereto, which may be necessary for the respective uses thereof," are exempted by the Act of 1878, ch. 413, sec. 3. The character of the buildings and furniture is sufficiently apparent on the face of the assessment and the order of the court. That the lands are "appurtenant," is equally obvious, and that the court found them necessary for the respective uses of the infirmary and college, (as they notoriously are,) will, it is believed, be presumed, in the absence of anything in the record to the contrary, under the rule laid down by the court in the cases cited. Lowe v. Lowe, 6 Md. 356; Clemens v. Baltimore, 16 Md. 208; Hollowell v. Miller, 17 Md. 305; McCann v. R. R. Co. 20 Md. 202.
The petition of the appellees alleges that certain property owned by them has been assessed for taxation under the Act of 1876, ch. 260, which it is alleged is exempted by law from valuation and assessment, and from State and municipal taxation.
The property consists of a lot of ground on the north side of Lombard street, between Greene and Paca streets with the buildings thereon and furniture therein; assessed at the aggregate value of $44,700; and second, of a lot of ground, with...
To continue reading
Request your trial