Commissioners of Carroll County v. B.F. Shriver Co.

• Decision Date: 22 July 1924
• Docket Number: 41.
• Parties: COMMISSIONERS OF CARROLL COUNTY ET AL. v. B. F. SHRIVER CO.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

126 A. 71

146 Md. 412

COMMISSIONERS OF CARROLL COUNTY ET AL. v. B. F. SHRIVER CO.

No. 41.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

July 22, 1924

Appeal from Circuit Court, Carroll County; Wm. H. Thomas and Robert Moss, Judges.

Suit by the Commissioners of Carroll County and others against the B F. Shriver Company, a body corporate. From judgment giving it insufficient relief, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Argued before PATTISON, URNER, ADKINS, OFFUTT, and BOND, JJ.

William L. Seabrook and Guy W. Steele, both of Westminster, for appellants.

Alfred Jenkins Shriver, of Baltimore, for appellee.

PATTISON J.

In this case the appellants brought suit against the appellee to recover county taxes on tangible personal property in Carroll county belonging to the appellee. The court sitting as a jury heard the case, and rendered a verdict for the appellants upon which a judgment was thereafter entered, for a sum much less than that claimed by the appellants. The reduction in the judgment was caused by the court's finding that a large amount of said property, consisting of engines machinery, etc., was exempt from the payment of such taxes. The appellants being dissatisfied with the amount of judgment so entered have appealed to this court.

The appellee is a corporation which is now, and has been for a number of years, largely and extensively engaged in the canning of corn and vegetables in Westminster, New Windsor and Union Mills, Carroll county, Md.

The Legislature in 1914 passed an act (chapter 528), the titling of which is as follows:

"An act to encourage the development of manufacturing industries in the state of Maryland, by providing for exemption from taxation of the tools, machinery, manufacturing implements and engines of corporations, firms and individuals actually engaged in manufacturing, provided that such exemption shall be granted only when requested by the county commissioners of any county or by the mayor and city council of Baltimore, by amending sections 4, 162 and 164 of article 81 of the Code of Public General Laws of Maryland as codified in the Annotated Code of 1912."

The said act of 1914 (chapter 528) amended section 164 of article 81, by adding thereto the following provision:

"The county commissioners of any county shall by resolution determine by a vote of its members whether there shall be in their respective county the exemption of the tools, machinery, manufacturing implements and engines of corporations, firms and individuals actually engaged in manufacturing, and duly certified to the state tax commissioner of Maryland; * * * and wherever no determination has been made and duly certified to the state tax commissioner, then and in that case, the tools, machinery, manufacturing implements and engines of corporations, firms and individuals actually engaged in manufacturing, shall be required to pay all taxes assessed against said property."

The county commissioners of Carroll county, pursuant to the power conferred upon them by said act of 1914, did on the 18th day of January, 1915, pass the following resolution:

"Resolved, that acting in pursuance of chapter 528, § 164 of the Acts of 1914, all tools, machinery, manufacturing implements and engines of corporations, firms and individuals actually engaged in manufacturing shall be hereafter exempt from taxation in Carroll county, Md."

After the passage of the above resolution, a copy of which was sent to the state tax commission, the tools, machinery, engines and other implements of the appellee used in its plants were, in settlements made by it with the county commissioners involving the payment of county taxes, recognized and treated as property, exempt from the payment thereof, and thereafter no such tax was paid thereon, nor was there any demand made upon the appellee for its payment until after the passage of the following resolution:

"Whereas, on the 18th day of January, A. D. 1915, the board of county commissioners of Carroll county, Md., passed and spread upon its minutes a resolution as follows:

Resolved, that acting in pursuance of chapter 528, § 164 of the Acts of 1914, all tools, machinery, manufacturing implements and engines of corporations, firms and individuals actually engaged in manufacturing shall be hereafter exempt from taxation in Carroll county, Md.:

Now, therefore, be it resolved, this 6th day of December, A. D. 1920, that the above and aforegoing resolution, passed by the board of county commissioners of Carroll county, Md., on the 18th day of January, A. D. 1915, be and the same is hereby rescinded, repealed, and annulled, and that, from and after this day and date, all tools, machinery, manufacturing implements and engines of corporations, firms and individuals engaged in manufacturing, shall be subject to taxation in Carroll county, Md., in the same manner and to the same extent as if the said resolution, bearing date January 18, 1915, had not been passed by said board of county commissioners."

The county commissioners who signed the above resolution purporting to rescind the resolution formerly passed by their predecessors in office notified the state tax commission of its passage, and thereafter the property, which by the resolution of January 18, 1915, was exempt from the payment of county taxes, was with other property of the appellee charged with the payment of those taxes; and the appellee when called upon to pay such taxes thereon refused, and this suit was brought.

Two questions are presented by this appeal:

(1) Was the appellee actually engaged in manufacturing?

(2) Did the appellants, the county commissioners of Carroll county, have the power and authority to rescind the order passed by them on the 18th day of January, 1915, exempting from the payment of county taxes the tools, machinery, etc., of the appellee.

1. In determining the first of these questions, we must not only consider what is done by the appellee, the means and methods by which it is done, and the extent of its operations, but we must also consider the purpose and object of the statute.

The appellee, at the time of the passage of the act of 1914, and at the date of the resolution of January 18, 1915, was engaged in canning corn, beans, peas, and succotash; the latter being a combination of corn and beans.

It had at such time three plants; one located in each of the following places, Westminster, New Windsor, and Union Mills. The value of the tools, machinery, implements and engines used by it at that time in the three factories amounted to $49,000, while in 1921, the value of such property then held by it was more than $200,000; and the plants in that...