Stoddert v. Ward
| Decision Date | 22 December 1869 |
| Citation | 31 Md. 562 |
| Parties | JOHN T. STODDERT v. JOSEPH F. WARD, Collector, and the County Commissioners of Charles County. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Charles County, in Equity.
The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.
The cause was argued before BARTOL, C.J., STEWART, GRASON, MILLER and ROBINSON, JJ.
Peter W. Crain, for the appellant.
The Commissioners of Charles County neglected and failed to have the Act of 1867, ch. 341, complied with or executed in Charles County. That Act was supplementary to the General Assessment Act of 1866, ch. 157, and the execution of it was as binding on the Commissioners of Charles County, as the Act of 1866, ch. 157; and until said Act was executed and enforced, the Commissioners had no legal right to make a levy on a portion of the taxable property of Charles County. State v. Milburn, 9 Gill, 103; State v Mayhew, 2 Gill, 487; Code, Art. 81, sec. 123. Before the Commissioners made their levy for the year 1869, the appellant informed them of his removal from Charles County to Baltimore City, and therefore, on his removal to Baltimore City, his real estate was only taxable there. Code, Art. 81 secs. 13, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23; Latrobe v. Baltimore, 19 Md. 13; Code, Art. 28, sec. 4.
Vivian Brent, for the appellees.
The County Commissioners of Charles County have complied with the requirements of the Act of 1867, ch. 341, and especially of secs. 3 and 4 of said Act. Acts of 1866, ch. 157; 1867, ch. 341; 1867, ch. 356. The appellant had not removed from Charles County, but resided there, and was there liable to taxation. Constitution, Art. 3, sec. 51; Parsons on Contracts, 91 and n. x; Code, Art. 81, secs. 18, 19; Act of 1866, ch. 157, sec. 12. As to time of assessment. Code, Art. 28, sec. 4; Art. 81, secs. 27, 38, 39.
This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of Charles County, refusing to grant an injunction, restraining the appellees from collecting from the appellant, taxes under the county levy for the year 1869.
The application for the injunction is based on two grounds.
1st. That the County Commissioners have failed to comply with the requirements of the Act of 1867, ch. 341, secs. 3, 4.
2nd. That prior to the levy for the year 1869, the complainant had ceased to be a resident of Charles County, and was not subject to taxation in that county in respect to certain stock owned by him, and included in the levy.
1st. The alleged failure of the Commissioners to comply with the requirements of the Act of 1867, as averred in the bill and stated in argument, is supposed to consist in their alleged omission to execute the provisions of the 3rd and 4th sections, by causing all property of every description liable to taxation to be assessed; and especially their omission, as alleged, to ascertain, as directed by the Act, "from banking institutions, and other corporations, full and complete lists of all such property, held by the citizens of Charles County." The bill charges that they have not executed the law, and that many persons holding such property have thereby been exonerated from paying and contributing their just and proper share to the support of the county charges. And consequently the appellant has been required to contribute more than his just and equal proportion to the support of the government.
There is no specification of any property which was liable to taxation and not assessed; the allegation in the bill is in general terms, charging substantially that by the provisions of the Act it is made the duty of the Commissioners to cause all property to be assessed, and that all has not been included in the assessment.
Under any revenue system that can be devised, some of the property of the citizens will escape taxation, especially such as is intangible, consisting of public and private securities, the evidences of which are only in the possession of the taxpayer, who has not the honesty to make them known to the officers of the law. No skill in the framing of the tax laws, or vigilance in their execution, can entirely prevent frauds upon the public revenue committed by parties concealing from the assessment property lawfully taxable.
In the execution of the revenue laws the Constitution and the Acts of Assembly have provided for the selection of certain public officers charged with the duty of assessing and collecting the public taxes; if any errors, omissions, or irregularities occur in the discharge of their duties, such errors may be corrected by the means which the tax laws provide. "Tax assessments ought not to be vacated, and property liable to taxation, released altogether because the public officers have not strictly followed the provisions of the law, which are merely directory; assessments are not invalid, if such directions are not complied with." O'Neal v. Bridge Co. 18 Md. 1.
In that case it was decided that a Court of Chancery cannot interfere for such cause to relieve a party from the payment of taxes assessed upon his property by the proper authority.
2nd. Does it appear by the averments in the bill, and the exhibits filed therewith, that the appellant was not a citizen of Charles County when the levy for 1869 was made?
He was owner of $90,000 of the stock debt of the City of...
To continue reading
Request your trial