Ulman v. City of Baltimore

• Decision Date: 25 March 1891
• Citation: Ulman v. City of Baltimore, 21 A. 711, 72 Md. 609 (Md. 1891)
• Parties: ULMAN v. MAYOR, ETC., OF BALTIMORE ET AL
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

21 A. 711

72 Md. 609

ULMAN v. MAYOR, ETC., OF BALTIMORE ET AL

Court of Appeals of Maryland

March 25, 1891

On reargument. For former report, see 20 A. 141. The motion for reargument was overruled August 28, 1890, but no opinion was filed until March 25, 1891.

MCSHERRY J.

The motion heretofore filed for reargument of this case has been overruled, but, in consequence of some suggestions contained in the elaborate and exceedingly able brief filed in behalf of the mayor and city council of Baltimore, we deem it proper to say a few words relative to the power of the municipality under existing legislation, to proceed with the work of paving its streets, and collecting the assessments therefor. The decision in this case did not deny the existence of that power, but only had reference to the mode of its exercise. The act of 1874, c. 218, (article 4, § 810, Code Pub. Local Laws,) is wide and sweeping in its provisions. It declares that "the said mayor and city council shall have, and are hereby vested with, full power and authority to provide by ordinance for the grading, shelling, paving, * * * of any street; * * * and also for assessing the cost of any such work, in whole or in part, pro rata upon the property binding on such street, * * * and for collecting such assessments as other city taxes are collected." The power thus conferred is as broad and comprehensive as language can make it. The statute, in truth, delegates to the city the whole authority of the legislature upon this subject. In construing another act of assembly (now codified in section 378, art. 4, Local Code) which gave the city of Baltimore "full power and authority to enact and pass all laws and ordinances necessary to preserve the health of the city, prevent and remove nuisances," etc our predecessors, in the case of Harrison v. Mayor, 1 Gill, 276, used this emphatic language: "The transfer of this salutary and essential power is given in terms as explicit and comprehensive as could have been used for such a purpose. To accomplish, within the specified territorial limits, the objects enumerated, the corporate authorities were clothed with all the legislative powers which the general assembly could have exerted." The language of the act of 1874 is equally as comprehensive as that of the statute just quoted, and confers, we think equally as broad a power. Had the act of 1874 gone further and empowered the city to make provision by...