City of Baltimore v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 29 May 1884
• Citation: 62 Md. 225
• Parties: THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, and CHARLES WEBB, City Collector v. REVERDY JOHNSON, EDWARD PATTERSON, JR., and others.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

62 Md. 225

THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, and CHARLES WEBB, City Collector v. REVERDY JOHNSON, EDWARD PATTERSON, JR., and others.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

May 29, 1884

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Baltimore City.

This suit was brought by the appellees, owners of ground, binding on Covington street, in the city of Baltimore, for an injunction to restrain the appellants from enforcing certain special taxes and assessments, levied for the grading curbing and paving of said Covington street, from a point at or near Warren street to Cross street. The grading and paving in question was done by the City Commissioner in pursuance of a special ordinance, No. 77 of the ordinances of 1880, passed in conformity with the Act of 1874, ch. 218. The grounds upon which the injunction was asked, were:

1st. That the grading and paving of Covington street was done solely for the public convenience, and the cost thereof could not legally be assessed to the owners of property binding thereon.

2nd. That the City Commissioner advertised for proposals to do the work in one newspaper only, when the ordinance required that notice should be given in three newspapers.

3rd. That the City Commissioner had not legally established the grade line of the designated part of Covington street, in that he assumed to establish such grade line upon the application of parties not owning property binding on said part of Covington street; and because he failed to give the legal public notice of the application for the establishment of such grade line. A preliminary injunction was granted. The defendants demurred to the bill. The Court (PHELPS, J.,) overruled the demurrer, and as the defendants waived all right to file an answer, and consented that the cause should stand as upon final hearing, the injunction was made perpetual. The defendants appealed.

The cause was argued before ALVEY, C.J., YELLOTT, STONE, MILLER and IRVING, J.

Bernard Carter, City Solicitor, and James L McLane, City Counsellor, for the appellants.

Michael A. Mullin, and Arthur W. Machen, for the appellees.

MILLER J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

There is at least one fatal objection to the validity of the tax the collection of which was restrained by the injunction granted in this case, and that is that the City Commissioner advertised for proposals to do the work in one newspaper only, when the ordinance required that he should advertise in thr...