Prince George's County Com'rs v. Mitchell

• Decision Date: 29 June 1903
• Citation: 97 Md. 330,55 A. 673
• Parties: PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY COM'RS v. MITCHELL.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

55 A. 673

97 Md. 330

PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY COM'RS

v. MITCHELL.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

June 29, 1903.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Prince George's County, in Equity; Geo. C. Merrick, Judge.

Suit by James H. E. Mitchell, as crier of the circuit court for Prince George's county. From a decree overruling a motion to dissolve an injunction issued against defendants restraining them from interfering with complainant in his duties relative to the courthouse and grounds in Upper Marlboro, Prince George's county, the commissioners appeal. Reversed.

Argued before McSHERRY, C. J., and FOWLER, BRISCOE, BOYD, and SCHMUCKER, JJ.

F. Snowden Hill, for appellants.

Joseph S. Wilson, for appellee.

BOYD, J. This is an appeal from a decree overruling a motion to dissolve an injunction issued against the appellants at the instance of the appellee, and making the Injunction perpetual. Chapter 455, p. 670, of the Acts of 1902, provides "that the courthouse and grounds attached thereto of Upper Marlboro, Prince George's county, Maryland, be and the same are hereby placed under the care, custody and control of the crier of the circuit court for said county, who shall be at said courthouse daily to see that it is properly cared for," and allows him a compensation of $200 to be annually levied by the county commissioners of that county, in addition to the $80 now paid him for his services as crier. The appellee is the crier of the court, and the bill prays that the county commissioners be enjoined and prohibited "from in any manner interfering with your orator in the discharge of the duties imposed upon him by the act of assembly herein mentioned, or from repairing or in any way exercising control over the courthouse and grounds attached thereto, in Upper Marlboro, Prince George's county, Maryland, and from refusing to give your orator free access to all portions of said courthouse necessary for him in exercise of his duties, as aforesaid, and from refusing to deliver to your orator any and all keys necessary for him to have, in order that he may fully do his duty as custodian of said courthouse and grounds." The injunction was issued as prayed.

The appellants contend that the court below erred, first, because the complaint of the appellee involves the title to a public office, which is not cognizable by a court of equity; and, second, because the act of assembly is unconstitutional. The latter question being the more important one, we will proceed at once to the consideration of that. No point was made at the argument about the language of the statute which refers to the "courthouse and grounds attached thereto of Upper Marlboro," etc., but it seemed to be assumed that it referred to the courthouse of the county, and hence we will not stop to discuss that language. Section 1, art. 7, of the Constitution, as amended; after providing for the election of county commissioners in 1891, reads: "Their number in each county, their compensation, powers and duties, shall be such as now or may be hereafter prescribed by law; they shall be elected at such times, in such numbers and for such periods not exceeding six years, as may be prescribed by law." Section 1, art. 25, Code Pub. Gen. Laws, provides that "the county commissioners of each county in this state are declared to be a corporation, and shall have full power to appoint judges of election, road supervisors, collectors of taxes, trustees of the poor, a clerk to their board, and all other officers, agents and servants required for county purposes, not otherwise provided for by law or by the Constitution, and they shall have charge of and control over the property owned by the county," etc. Under the above section of the Constitution, here is no doubt that the Legislature may pass laws changing the powers and duties of the county commissioners, so long as such laws do not conflict with some other provision of the Constitution, and there have been many changes since the section of the Code just quoted was adopted. They no longer appoint judges of election, and in many of the counties some of the other officers named are otherwise selected. It may therefore be conceded, for the purposes of this case (although we do not so determine, it not being necessary), that the Legislature could commit a county building, such as a courthouse, to the "care, custody and control" of some one other than the county commissioners; but the question is whether it can confer such powers and impose such duties on the crier of the court as are attempted by this statute. Since the decision in Beasley v. Ridout, 94 Md. 641, 52 Atl. 61, it could not be contended that a statute which provided for the appointment by the circuit court of some one to have the care, custody, and control of the courthouse and grounds attached would be valid. The statute then under consideration provided for the appointment, by the Judges of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, of visitors to the jail in Anne Arundel county, and this court held that the provision requiring such appointment was unconstitutional, because in violation of the...