Somerset County Com'rs v. Pocomoke Bridge Co.

• Decision Date: 12 November 1908
• Citation: 71 A. 462,109 Md. 1
• Parties: SOMERSET COUNTY COM'RS v. POCOMOKE BRIDGE CO.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

71 A. 462

109 Md. 1

SOMERSET COUNTY COM'RS

v. POCOMOKE BRIDGE CO.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Nov. 12, 1908.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Somerset County; Henry Lloyd, Judge.

Action by the Pocomoke Bridge Company against the County Commissioners of Somerset County. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed, without awarding a new trial.

Argued before BOYD, C. J., and BRISCOE, PEARCE, SCHMUCKER, BURKE, THOMAS, WORTHINGTON, and HENRY, JJ.

Joshua W. Miles and H. Fillmore Lankford, for appellant.

Melvin & Handy, for appellee.

BOYD, C. J. This is a suit by the Pocomoke Bridge Company, a corporation incorporated by chapter 14, p. 18, Acts 1865, against the county commissioners of Somerset county, to recover $600, claimed to be due under section 12 of that act. A demurrer to the declaration was overruled by the court below, and the defendant then filed six pleas, in the first of which is set out the charter of the company in full, and all of them allege, either that the whole act is unconstitutional and null and void, or that section 12 is. Some of them assign reasons for so alleging, while others do not; the principal ground relied on being that the title to the act is not sufficient, particularly in so far as the provisions contained in section 12 are concerned. A demurrer to the pleas was sustained, and the general issue plea of not guilty was filed. The case was submitted to the court without the intervention of a jury, and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff. During the trial an exception was taken to the admission of section 12, on the ground that it is unconstitutional and void. This appeal was taken from the judgment on the abovementioned verdict. We do not deem it necessary to pass on the demurrers and the exception separately, but will proceed at once to what we regard the important question in the case.

It involves section 29, art. 3, of the Constitution, or more properly speaking section 28, art. 3, of the Constitution of 1864, which was in force when the act of 1865 was passed. The provision in question is, however, the same in both—"every law enacted by the General Assembly shall embrace but one subject, and that shall be described in its title." The title of the act is: "An act to incorporate the Pocomoke Bridge Company." The act names seven persons as commissioners to receive subscriptions to the capital stock, "to construct a bridge across the Pocomoke river, in Worcester and Somerset counties, at or near the site of the present ferry, known as 'Steven's Ferry'"; said stock being limited to $45,000, divided into shares of $100 each. As soon as 100 shares were subscribed, the organization of the company was authorized, and various provisions were made in the charter. The two important sections are as follows:

"Sec. 11. And be it enacted, that upon the completion of said bridge, all citizens and residents of Somerset and Worcester counties, and all nonresident taxpayers of said counties, shall pass over said bridge free of toll or charges, but all other persons shall pay such tolls and charges as the president and directors may determine, provided said tolls or charges shall not exceed the following rates: For each foot passenger, five cents; for each horse and rider, ten cents; for each carriage with one horse attached, twenty-five cents; for each carriage with two horses attached, fifty cents; for each wagon or cart with more than two horses or oxen attached, seventy-five cents.

"Sec. 12. And be it enacted, that the county commissioners for Somerset county be and are hereby required to levy annually on the assessable property of said county the sum of six hundred dollars, and to pay the same to the president and directors of said company at the end of each year, and that the county commissioners of Worcester county be and they are hereby required to levy annually on the assessable property of said county, the sum of seven hundred dollars, and to pay over the same to the president and directors of the company aforesaid at the end of each year."

No one can read the title to this act without being impressed with the fact that it is exceedingly meager, in order to justify such legislation as section 12. The charter was granted before the General Laws provided for the incorporation of bridge companies. Since 1868 the corporation laws of this state have required companies, incorporated under the General Laws for the erection of bridges, to first obtain, in writing, the consent of the county commissioners of the county in which the bridge is to be located, or if proposed to be erected over a stream dividing two counties to obtain the consent, in writing, of the county commissioners of both counties, and the commissioners are given large powers over them, including that of requiring the adjustment and revision of tolls, so as to yield not more than 8 per centum net dividend. Although those provisions were not in force when this company was chartered, there were other statutes which showed the policy of this state to be to require great care, on the part of the county commissioners, before incurring obligations in connection with the building of bridges. They were required by the Code of 1800 to advertise for sealed proposals for building or repairing a bridge, if the cost exceeded $200, toaward a contract to the lowest competent bidder, to demand a bond of the contractor, and, upon petition praying for a bridge to be built or repaired over a stream dividing two adjoining counties, the commissioners of one county were directed to obtain the concurrence of those of the other. Three examiners were to be appointed by each, who were required to examine into the expediency of building or repairing the bridge, the place where, the plan, material, and the relative portion of the cost of each county, to advertise for proposals, award the work to the lowest bidder, supervise the work, etc. An appeal was granted any citizen or citizens to the circuit court, if the county commissioners determined to build or repair any bridge, or unite with an adjoining county in building or repairing one between the two counties, etc. Those provisions are still in force, being sections 10-38, art. 25, Code Pub. Gen. Laws 1904. Notwithstanding such precautions were to be taken when the county commissioners proposed to build or repair a bridge, this act required the county commissioners of those two counties to pay to a private corporation $000 and $700, respectively, every year, although there is nothing more in the title than shown above. Was that lawfully done? Or, to put the question in a more apt form, is this constitutional provision of any value, if two counties can thus be required to pay annually 6 per centum on about one-half of the authorized capital of a private corporation, under an act, the title to which does not make the remotest suggestion of such a provision being in the body of the act? There have been so many decisions by this court relating to this clause of the Constitution that it would seem almost as if there was not room for further contention about it, but the difficulty is that the principles applicable to it must be applied to the particular facts and circumstances of each statute under consideration, and hence it is not easy to find a case exactly in point. What may be considered "one subject" in some classes of legislation may not be in others.

The "subject" of the law now under consideration, as indicated by the title, was the incorporation of the Pocomoke Bridge Company, while the body of the act not only contained provisions which were germane and appropriate to that subject, but also this provision which required the two counties to pay the respective sums of money to the company, after it was organized and the bridge was built. If it be conceded that in a charter of a bridge company it would be germane and lawful to authorize a county to subscribe to its capital stock, or to authorize the company to agree...