City of Baltimore v. Gittings
| Decision Date | 01 April 1910 |
| Citation | 77 A. 319,113 Md. 119 |
| Parties | MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE et al. v. GITTINGS. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court of Baltimore City, in Equity; Chas. W Henisler, Judge.
Suit by John S. Gittings against The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore and others. From an order overruling a demurrer to the bill, plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and bill dismissed.
Argued before BOYD, C.J., and BRISCOE, PEARCE, SCHMUCKER, BURKE THOMAS, PATTISON, and URNER, JJ.
W. H De C. Wright, for appellant.
Charles W. Nash, for appellees.
This is an appeal from an order of the circuit court for Baltimore City overruling a demurrer to a bill of complaint filed by the appellant, John S. Gittings, trustee, against the appellee the mayor and city council of Baltimore.
The bill alleges that the plaintiff was seised and possessed for the term of his natural life with remainder to his issue of a farm known as "Ashburton," containing 350 acres of land, more or less, which, prior to Acts 1888, c. 98, was situated in Baltimore county, but under said act was brought within the limits of Baltimore City, and while being so seised and possessed of his estate in said lands he, on the 7th day of November, 1904, filed in the circuit court for Baltimore city his bill against the remaindermen, asking for the sale of said property. On the 24th of January, 1905, a decree was passed for the sale of said lands, by which John S. Gittings was appointed trustee to make sale thereof, and he thereupon accepted the trust and filed his bond with security, as required by said decree. The bill further alleges that he, as trustee, applied himself for a long time to bring about a sale of said property, and a short while before the institution of these proceedings sold 44.18 acres at the rate of $2,125 per acre, which price, in a certain contingency, is to be reduced to $2,000 per acre. The sale was duly reported and was awaiting ratification at the time of the filing of the bill in this case. It is further alleged that the plaintiff received a notice which is filed as an exhibit, addressed to him individually and not as trustee signed by J. H. M. Payne, chief assessor, for and on behalf of the appeal tax court, notifying him of its purpose and intention to reassess, for the year 1909, the aforementioned property; that the assessment, which at the time of the notice was $221,400 (about $632 per acre), be increased to $381,544 (about $1,100 per acre). The notice likewise stated that the decision of the appeal tax court would be entered on the books of the tax department on October 1, 1909, with the right of appeal within 30 days thereafter to the Baltimore City court. The bill further alleges, in substance, that inasmuch as the circuit court had taken jurisdiction and control of this land, under the proceedings in the case of John S. Gittings v. Henry May Gittings et al. first above referred to, the defendant the mayor and city council of Baltimore, or the defendants who constitute the said appeal tax court, are not authorized by law to interfere in any way with said jurisdiction and control of that court over the same, and that it is not competent for the said defendants to increase the assessment upon the said property without the leave of that court first had and obtained, nor to take away from that court the power of judging of the value of said property and transfer the same to themselves; that the defendant the mayor and city council of Baltimore cannot collect any taxes on said property without the leave of this court; and that he is advised that neither it nor the other defendants can take any steps preliminary to the imposition or collection of such taxes without the leave of that court.
The bill alleges that the land is a large parcel of rural property one-half of a square mile in area of different and unequal values, and is now and has always been used for agricultural purposes; that it would be impossible, without a great sacrifice, to bring the whole of said property into the market and dispose of it in its entirety; that the trustee has now made a beginning in disposing of it and has reasonable expectation of selling more to advantage. It is further alleged in the bill that under Acts 1908, c. 286, the defendants the appeal tax court are directed to divide up and classify the real and leasehold property situated in the so-called "annexed district," that this classification must precede any assessment of said property and charges that no such division or classification of said property has been made by said appeal tax court, if so, he had received no notice thereof; that the said farm is in many places rough and rugged and intersected with deep ravines or rising and difficult hills, that such parts demanded the expenditure of large sums of money before they could become urban or even suburban property, that the farm is intersected by the tracks of the Western Maryland Railroad Company, which considerably diminishes its value, and alleges that the amount of the assessment now imposed on said farm is its full value, and any increase of such value would be unjust, unfair and unequal between the different parts of said property and adjoining lands whether in the annex or in Baltimore county, that this property was assessed at its present assessment about five years ago, and its value has not only not increased in that time from the amount of the present assessment, $221,400 to $381,544, as now suggested by the said defendants the judges of the appeal tax court, but has not increased at all. The bill further alleges that the plaintiff is advised that the said notice of assessment is null and void, not only for the reasons hereinbefore given, but because it is irregular in every respect. The bill then prays that the defendants be enjoined and prohibited from taking any steps to increase, and from increasing, the assessment on the property above the present assessment, and from issuing to the plaintiff any notice or notices of any intended increased assessment above its present...
To continue reading
Request your trial