Wyse v. Yellott

• Decision Date: 17 January 1913
• Parties: WYSE v. YELLOTT et al.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

87 A. 419

119 Md. 463

WYSE v. YELLOTT et al.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

January 17, 1913

Appeal from Circuit Court, Baltimore County, in Equity; Frank I Duncan and Wm. H. Harlan, Judges.

Suit by William P. E. Wyse against George W. Yellott and others constituting the Good Roads Commission of Baltimore County and another. From an order sustaining a demurrer to the bill and dismissing it, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Randolph Barton, Jr., of Baltimore, for appellant. Osborne I. Yellott of Baltimore, for appellees. PEARCE, BURKE, THOMAS, PATTISON, and STOCKBRIDGE, JJ.

BURKE J.

Chapter 345 of the Acts of 1912 created a commission known as the good roads commission of Baltimore county, and charged it with the duty of constructing a system of improved public roads and bridges in that county. It appointed James Rittenhouse, George W. Yellott, and Asa B. Gardiner, Jr., as commissioners and declared that they and their successors should constitute said commission. These gentlemen qualified as prescribed by the act and entered upon the discharge of their duties. The act conferred upon the commission large powers. It was authorized to contract with any person or corporation in furtherance of the duties and objects of the act, to buy machinery and supplies in connection with the work authorized to be done, and to employ attorneys, clerks, stenographers, workmen, etc. Said commission might sue and be sued in all matters pertaining to the highways and bridges over which it was given control; but any judgment or decree rendered against it for negligence or breach of duty imposed by the act, or for the breach on its part of any contract entered into by it, was required to be paid by the county commissioners of Baltimore county. The salary of each commissioner was fixed at $2,000 per annum, and their salaries, as well as those of its counsel, secretary, and other office assistants, together with all its office expenses, were directed to be paid by the county commissioners out of the general road and bridge fund of the county. the county commissioners were directed to issue bonds to the amount of $1,500,000, which, when issued, were declared to be a lien upon the assessable property of the county; the proceeds realized from the sale of the bonds were to be used in the completion of the road and bridge work provided for by the act.

On April 18, 1912, the commission organized and provided for the...