Baltimore Shipbuilding Dry Dock Company of Baltimore City v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore

• Decision Date: 28 November 1904
• Docket Number: No. 39,39
• Citation: 49 L.Ed. 242,25 S.Ct. 50,195 U.S. 375
• Parties: BALTIMORE SHIPBUILDING & DRY DOCK COMPANY OF BALTIMORE CITY, Plff. in Err. , v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE et al
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

195 U.S. 375

25 S.Ct. 50

49 L.Ed. 242

BALTIMORE SHIPBUILDING & DRY DOCK COMPANY OF BALTIMORE CITY, Plff. in Err.,

v MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE et al.

No. 39.

Argued November 2, 3, 1904.

Decided November 28, 1904.

Messrs. E. P. Keech, Jr., Leon E. Greenbaum, and Archibald H. Taylor for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 375-378 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Edgar Allan Poe and W. Cabell Bruce for defendants in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 378-380 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a writ of error to the court of appeals of the state of Maryland, brought to reverse a judgment sustaining a tax upon certain land. The plaintiff in error filed a petition and appeal from an assessment by the appeal tax court of Baltimore in the Baltimore city court, alleging that its land was not subject to taxation, and, if subject, was taxed too high. The city court reduced the tax, but held the land liable, and its judgment was affirmed by the court of appeals. 97 Md. 97, 54 Atl. 623. The land in question formerly belonged to the United States, being part of the property known as Fort McHenry, and is admitted not to have been taxable at that time. Under an act of Congress of June 19, 1878 (20 Stat. at L. 167, chap. 310), it was conveyed to the plaintiff in error on March 26, 1879. By the terms of the deed, following the requirements of the act, the consideration of the conveyance and the condition upon which it was made was that the dock company should construct a dry dock upon the land as specified, which it did, and that it should 'accord to the United States the right to the use forever of the said dry dock at any time for the prompt examination and repair of vessels belonging to the United States, free from charge for docking, and if at any time said property hereby conveyed shall be diverted to any other use than that herein named, or if the said dry dock shall be at any time unfit for use for a period of six months or more, the property hereby conveyed, with all its privileges and appurtenances, shall revert to, and become the absolute property of, the United States.' This condition is relied upon as still keeping the land outside the taxing power of the state.

It is argued that the United States has such an interest in the land as to prevent the tax, and also that the land is an agency of the government by the terms of the grant. It is noted that this tax originally was levied upon the land, not upon the dock company's interest, and although the language of the final judgment was 'the property concerned in the appeal in this case,' that is supposed to mean the same thing.

We will deal with the argument drawn from the last consideration first. It is true that commonly taxes on land create a lien paramount to all interest, and that a tax sale often has been said to extinguish all titles, and to start a new one. Hefner v. Northwestern Mut. L. Ins. Co. 123 U. S. 747, 751, 31 L. ed. 309, 311, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 337; Textor v. Shipley, 86 Md. 424, 438, 38 Atl. 932; Emery v. Boston Terminal Co. 178 Mass. 172, 184, 86 Am. St. Rep. 473, 59 N. E. 763. Perhaps it was assumed that this always was the effect of tax sales, in Northern P. R. Co. v. Traill County, 115 U. S. 600, 29 L. ed. 477, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 201. But it needs no argument to show that a state may do less. It may tax a life estate to one and a remainder to another, and sell only the interest of the party making default. With regard to what the state of Maryland has done and what are the purport and attempted effect of the tax in ...