State v. Schultz Gas-Fixture & Art-Metal Co.
| Citation | 34 A. 243,83 Md. 58 |
| Parties | STATE v. SCHULTZ GAS-FIXTURE & ART-METAL CO. |
| Decision Date | 25 March 1896 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Maryland |
Appeal from court of common pleas.
An action by the state of Maryland against the Schultz Gas-Fixture & Art-Metal Company to recover a bonus on increase of capital stock, provided for by Act 1890, c. 536. There was a verdict and judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before McSHERRY, C.J., and BRYAN, ROBERTS, BRISCOE, BOYD PAGE, and RUSSUM, JJ.
J Alex. Preston and R. Ludlow Preston, for the State.
Jos. C France, for appellee.
The general assembly, at its January session, 1890 (Laws 1890, c 536), passed an act entitled "An act to add a new section to article eighty one of the Code of Public General Laws, title 'Revenue and Taxes,' sub-title 'Payment of Taxes by Corporations,' providing for the payment by every newly incorporated company of a bonus on its capital stock, for the use of the state, to come in after section eight, and to be designated as section eighty-eight A." In the body of the act it is provided that "every corporation, incorporated since January 1, 1890," except cemetery companies, and companies formed for purely charitable and benevolent purposes, and railroad companies, shall pay to the state treasurer, for the use of the state, a bonus of one-eighth of 1 per centum upon the amount of the capital stock which said company is authorized to have, in two equal installments, and a like bonus upon any subsequent increase thereof; the first installment to be due and payable upon the incorporation of such company, or on the increase of its capital, and the second installment one year thereafter; the exercise of any corporate powers being prohibited "until the first installment of said bonus has been paid to the treasurer of the state." The concluding portion of the act is in these words: "Whenever the capital stock of any of said companies, or any company of like character heretofore incorporated shall be increased a bonus of one sixth of one per centum upon the amount of said increase, shall be paid to the state treasurer, in two equal installments, the first to be due and payable upon the recording of the certificate of such increase, or upon the passage of any special act authorizing such increase, and the second installment shall be due and payable one year thereafter." This act took effect from its passage, and was approved April 8, 1890. The state of Maryland brought suit against the Schultz Gas-Fixture & Art-Metal Company, in the court of common pleas of Baltimore city, to recover the bonus of one-sixth of 1 per centum upon the increase of its capital stock to the amount of $200,000; and the case was tried before the judge at large, upon an agreed statement of facts, and without the intervention of a jury. By the admitted facts in the case, it appears that the Schultz Gas-Fixture & Art-Metal Company was a corporation existing prior to January 1, 1890, and that, pursuant to its charter, an increase of its capital stock was ordered, to the amount of $200,000, and that the certificate of such increase was recorded on the 30th day of December, 1890, of which increase only $35,000 was actually issued; that the defendant had paid no part of the bonus on such increase, but had refused, and still refuses, to pay said tax; and that, if it was liable for said tax, the whole amount was due and payable. The plaintiff requested the court to rule, as a matter of law, from these facts, that it was entitled to recover one-sixth of 1 per centum on the amount of increase of defendant's capital stock set out in said recorded certificate, which the court refused to do, to which refusal the plaintiff excepted; and, the verdict and judgment being entered for the defendant, the plaintiff appealed to this court. The principal question presented by this appeal is the constitutionality of so much of Act 1890, c. 536, as imposes a tax of one-sixth of 1 per centum on the increase of the capital stock of corporations created and existing prior to January 1, 1890.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Perrin
......Lee Elgin,. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles for the state of Maryland, for. a declaratory judgment. From orders in the proceedings. ... Levin v. Hewes, 118 Md. 624, 628, 86 A. 233; State. v. Schultz Co., 83 Md. 58, 60, 34 A. 243, Crouse v. State, 130 Md. 364, 100 A. ......
-
City of Baltimore v. Flack
...... because in conflict with section 29 of article 3 of the state. Constitution, as contended by the appellees? (b) If not. invalid, what ... previously made, was stricken down. And in State v. Schultz Co. 83 Md. 58, 34 A. 243, the title had relation. to newly incorporated ......
-
Bell v. Board of Com'rs of Prince George's County
...... amusement devices is operated as a gambling machine. Hunter v. State, Md., 69 A.2d 505. A further rather. complete discussion of how some ... that the Act was bad. In State v. Schultz Co., 83. Md. 58, 34 A. 243, the title of the act stated that it. ......
-
County Com'rs of Worcester County v. Board of County School Com'rs of Worcester County
...... section 29, art. 3, of the state Constitution, which provides. that "every law enacted by the General ...56;. Whitman v. State, 80 Md. 410, 31 A. 325; State. v. Schultz Co., 83 Md. 58, 34 A. 243; State v. Benzinger, 83 Md. 481, 35 A. 173; ......