Vansant v. Harlem Stage Co. of Baltimore City

• Decision Date: 02 February 1883
• Citation: 59 Md. 330
• Parties: JOSHUA VANSANT, Comptroller of the CITY of BALTIMORE v. THE HARLEM STAGE COMPANY OF BALTIMORE CITY.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

59 Md. 330

JOSHUA VANSANT, Comptroller of the CITY of BALTIMORE v. THE HARLEM STAGE COMPANY OF BALTIMORE CITY.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

February 2, 1883

APPEAL from the Court of Common Pleas.

Section 138, of Article 4, of the Code of Public Local Laws, provided as follows: "The Mayor and City Council have power to license and regulate hackney coaches, or other carriages kept for hire and employed within the city, and also draymen wagoners, carters, porters, and watermen, residing and employed within the said city, with power to make all necessary regulations respecting the same."

By the Act of 1880, ch. 69, this section was repealed and re-enacted, so as to read as follows:

"Sec 138. The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore shall have power to license and regulate all carriages and other vehicles owned and used within the city, whether kept and used for the purposes of business or pleasure; and also all hackney coaches, carriages, carts, drays, omnibuses, wagons and other vehicles kept for hire, or hired in said city and also to license and regulate the employment of all hackmen, draymen, wagoners, carters, porters, and watermen plying for hire within the limits of said city, and to pass all necessary and proper regulations respecting the same; provided, however, that all the revenue arising from said licenses shall be applied to the paving or repaving of the public highways of the city."

By ordinance approved the 28th of April, 1882, section 32 of Article 8 of the Baltimore City Code of 1879, was repealed and re-enacted, so as to read as follows:

"Section 32. The owner or owners of any carriage, boat, or scow, obtaining license therefor, shall pay the Comptroller, for the use of the city, for every hackney coach, cab, buggy, wagon, or other four wheel pleasure carriage kept for hire, five dollars and fifty cents for the original license, and five dollars for the annual renewal thereof; for every chair, gig, cab, buggy, or other pleasure carriage drawn by one horse, and kept for hire, three dollars and fifty cents for the original license, and three dollars for the annual renewal thereof; for every wagon drawn by more than three horses or mules, ten dollars and fifty cents for the original license, and ten dollars for the annual renewal thereof; for every wagon or cart drawn by more than one, and not more than three horses or mules, five dollars and fifty cents for the original license, and five dollars for the annual renewal thereof; for every wagon or cart, or other carriage of burden drawn by not more than one horse or mule, ten dollars and fifty cents, and for each renewal, ten dollars; for each boat or scow, two dollars and fifty cents for the original, and two dollars for each renewal; for every package cart, one dollar, and for every transfer of any of the licenses authorized by this ordinance, fifty cents; for every omnibus drawn by two or more horses or mules used for hire within the corporate limits of the City of Baltimore, in the conveyance of passengers from place to place, and which is known and recognized as a passenger omnibus, seventy-five dollars for the original license, and fifty dollars for the annual renewal thereof;" * * * * *

On the 2nd of May, 1882, the appellee, as the owner of twenty-three public omnibuses, used for the transportation of passengers from place to place within the city for hire, for which, in May, 1881, it had taken out a license for the year ending 1st May, 1882, applied for renewal of licenses therefor, and tendered $115 in payment, being at the rate of $5 for each omnibus; and as the owner of three omnibuses not previously licensed, it applied for original licenses, and tendered $16.50 in payment, being at the rate of $5.50 for each omnibus. The appellant refused to issue licenses for these omnibuses unless the appellee would pay the amounts prescribed by the above-mentioned ordinance, approved April 28th, 1882. This the appellee refused to do, and on the 11th of May, 1882, filed its petition for a mandamus, to compel the appellant to issue the licenses in question to it, in the performance of what it claimed was a mere ministerial duty on his part, and one in reference to which he had no discretion, upon the payment to him of the sums so tendered. On May 19th, 1882, the appellant filed his answer, admitting that he had refused to issue licenses, as demanded by the appellee, upon payment of the amount fixed by the former ordinance, for the reason that such ordinance was no longer in force, having been repealed by that of the 28th of April, 1882. To this answer the appellee demurred; and on the 8th day of July, 1882, the Court (BROWN, J.) passed an order sustaining the demurrer, and directing a peremptory writ of mandamus to issue as prayed by the appellee in its petition. From this order the present appeal was taken.

The cause was argued before MILLER, STONE, ALVEY, ROBINSON, IRVING, and RITCHIE, J.

Thomas W. Hall, City Solicitor, and John P. Poe, City Counsellor, for the appellant.

W. Starr Gephart, and Bernard Carter, for the appellee.

STONE J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Act of 1880, chap. 69, of the Public Local Laws, conferred upon the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, the power to license and regulate certain vehicles, owned and used in the city, and also to license and regulate certain occupations carried on therein. The true construction of this Act, and to define what power it intended to grant to the city, and whether the city, in its dealing with the appellee, has exceeded the powers it derived from that Act, are the two questions presented to us on this appeal.

First as to the true construction of the Act of 1880. This Court has laid down some general rules for the construction of the grant of powers to municipal corporations, in the case...