Graham v. Commissioners of Harford County
| Decision Date | 03 March 1898 |
| Citation | 39 A. 804,87 Md. 321 |
| Parties | GRAHAM, Comptroller, et al. v. COMMISSIONERS OF HARFORD COUNTY. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from circuit court, Harford county.
Bill for injunction by the county commissioners of Harford county against Robert P. Graham, comptroller of the treasury of Maryland, and another. From an order granting the injunction defendants appeal. Reversed.
Argued before MCSHERRY, C.J., and BRISCOE, BRYAN, PAGE, BOYD FOWLER, and ROBERTS, JJ.
Atty Gen. Clabaugh, for appellants. Geo. Y. Maynadier, for appellees.
By section 178, c. 120, and by section 199, c. 140, of the Acts of Assembly of 1896, provision is made for the valuation and assessment of the rolling stock of railway companies for purposes of county and municipal taxation. In substance these sections enact that the situs of such rolling stock shall be taken and considered to be in the assessment district in which the company's principal place of business is located, that the total valuation shall be made there, and that, for the purposes of county and municipal taxation, this total valuation shall be divided among the counties and the city of Baltimore in proportion to the mileage of roadbed located in the counties and in the city, respectively. The several boards of control and review are required to make reports to the state tax commissioner as to the total valuations of such rolling stock so made up in the assessment district of its situs, and it is thereupon declared to be the duty of the state tax commissioner to apportion and divide the total valuation among the counties and the city of Baltimore according to the mileage of roadbed therein, respectively. Section 199 then goes on to declare: "And after having made such apportionment or division thereof, he [the state tax commissioner] shall certify to the respective boards of county commissioners of the several counties and to the appeal tax court of Baltimore city the amount of the proportion of the valuation of such rolling stock to which each such county or the said city is so entitled; and such proportions respectively shall thereafter be valued and assessed for purposes of taxation in such respective counties or said city, subject to the right of appeal as in other cases in this article." Under these and other provisions of the general assessment act of 1896 the rolling stock owned by the Philadelphia, Wilmington & Baltimore Railroad Company was valued and assessed in assessment district No. 3 of Baltimore city. The total valuation thereof was returned by the board of control and review to the state tax commissioner, who at once made an apportionment and division of the whole between the city and the several counties of this state through which the railroad is located, and ascertained, upon the mileage basis, that the amount chargeable to the company for county taxation in Harford county was $550,202.81, which amount he forthwith certified to the county commissioners of that county. From this apportionment the railroad company took an appeal to the comptroller of the state treasury and to the treasurer of Maryland. Pending that appeal, which, from aught that appears to the contrary, is still undisposed of, the county commissioners of Harford county filed, in the circuit court for Harford county, the bill of complaint to be found in the record now before us. This bill, after making allusion to the assessment, apportionment, and appeal just adverted to, alleges that the comptroller and treasurer are proceeding to hear and determine questions relative to the amount so apportioned to Harford county, and that they are about to interfere with said apportionment, and to largely reduce the amount thereof, under pretense of reviewing the same as a board of appeal, which action, it is charged, is without any legal authority or warrant of law. The bill then prays for an injunction to restrain the comptroller and the treasurer from interfering in any manner with, and from disturbing by any action whatever on their part, the apportionment of $550,202.81 so made by the state tax commissioner. Upon this bill an ex parte order was passed, directing the injunction to issue as prayed, and accordingly three writs went out,--one to Baltimore city, one to Anne Arundel county, and one to Wicomico county. The writ issued to Baltimore city was served on both the comptroller and the treasurer, that to Wicomico was served on the comptroller, and that to Anne Arundel was returned indorsed "Non sunt." The defendants appeared solely for the purpose of contesting the jurisdiction of the court, and filed a demurrer to the bill. They then immediately appealed to this court from the order granting the injunction.
It is nowhere averred in the bill that either of the defendants is a resident of Harford county, and, apart from all other questions in the case, it is insisted that, in the absence of an appropriate allegation showing that the defendants were or that one of them was, within the court's jurisdiction, or that the subject-matter of the proceeding was, the court below possessed no power to order the injunction to be issued. Not only does the bill fail to aver that the defendants were within the limits of the court's jurisdiction, but the docket entries affirmatively show that they were not; for no writ was directed to them in Harford county, but three were sent to other circuits in the state. It cannot be pretended that the circuit court for Harford county has authority to restrain by injunction the fiscal officers of the state, who do not reside or are not found within that county, from doing some act, beyond the limits of the county, respecting property not actually situated...
To continue reading
Request your trial