Baltimore v. Stirling
| Decision Date | 09 June 1868 |
| Parties | THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE v. ARCHIBALD STIRLING and JOHN RIDGELY, Trustees of the Estate of NICHOLAS G. RIDGELY, deceased. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Baltimore City.
This suit was docketed by consent, in the Superior Court of Baltimore City, by the appellant against the appellees, to recover the sum of $1101.91, alleged to be due the former, by the latter, as trustees, for city taxes for the years, 1863 1864 and 1865, on certain bonds of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, and of the State of Maryland. The property on which these taxes were claimed, was in the years aforesaid, held by the appellees as trustees of the estate of Nicholas G. Ridgely, deceased, by appointment of Baltimore County Court, as a Court of Equity, for the benefit of Mrs Eliza E. Ridgely, daughter of the testator and wife of the trustee, John Ridgely, she being entitled to the clear rents and profits of said estate during her life. The trustee Ridgely, resided in Baltimore county, and the other trustee Stirling, was a resident of Baltimore city. This suit was instituted to determine whether the taxes in question were payable to the appellant or to the commissioners of Baltimore county, both claiming them.
A pro forma judgment was entered by agreement for the defendants, and the plaintiff appealed.
The cause was submitted to BARTOL, C.J., STEWART, BRENT, MILLER and ROBINSON, J.
Wm. Henry Norris, for the appellant,
Referred to the following authorities: Latrobe vs. The Mayor, &c. of Baltimore, 19 Md. Rep. 13; The State, ex rel. Harkness, et al. vs. Mathews, 10 Ohio N. S., 431; Hurdy vs. Yarmouth, 6 Allen, 277.
Archibald Stirling, Jr., for the appellees,
Cited the same authorities, and contended that under the decision of Latrobe vs. The Mayor, &c. of Baltimore, 19 Md. Rep., 13, as one of the trustees resided in Baltimore city and the other in Baltimore county, the city of Baltimore could only claim taxes on the one-half of the property assessed. And the true construction of the revenue laws of the State required that in a case like this, where the whole income is paid to a beneficiary, the residence of that beneficiary should decide the situs for taxation, and the decision in Latrobe vs. The Mayor, &c. of Baltimore, ought not to be followed.
This Court in the case of Latrobe vs. The Mayor...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Blakely v. Hilton
...such circumstances is that furnished by the decisions of other courts in similar cases, which are here cited"--citing Mayor, etc., of Baltimore v. Stirling, 29 Md. 48; Appeal Tax Court of Baltimore City v. Gill, 50 396; State of Ohio ex rel. Harkness v. Matthews, 10 Ohio St. 431; Hardy v. Y......
-
State Tax Commission v. Commissioners of Baltimore County
... ... be, excepting they are transferable on the books of the ... voting trustees, instead of on those of the company. It is a ... wholly different trust from such as was being considered in ... Latrobe v. Baltimore, 19 Md. 13; Baltimore v ... Stirling, 29 Md. 48; and other cases of similar kind ... Even in speaking of that kind of trust, this court, through ... Judge Schmucker, said in Baltimore v. Safe Deposit ... Co., 97 Md. 659, 55 A. 316, that- ... "When property is held in trust there are two persons ... each of whom is in a certain ... ...
-
State v. Red River Valley Elevator Company
... ... assessed at the place where it is located. Hardy v ... Inhabitants, 6 Allen, 227; Mayor v. Stirling, ... 29 Md. 48; People v. Board, 40 N.Y. 154; State ... v. Matthews, 10 Oh. St. 431; Borough v ... Marshall, 36 Pa. 397; Desty, Taxn. 337; ... ...
-
City of Baltimore v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co. of Baltimore
... ... validity of the act of 1902 in regulating the assessment and ... taxation of the class of personal property involved in the ... present case ... It is ... not necessary to refer to the cases of the Mayor and C.C ... of Baltimore v. Stirling, 29 Md. 48, Appeal Tax ... Court v. Gill, 50 Md. 377, and the Appeal Tax Court ... v. Patterson, 50 Md. 354, relied on by the appellants, ... further than to call attention to the fact that they were all ... decided before the Legislature had made provision by statute, ... as it has ... ...