The aegis & intelligencer. [volume] (Bel Air, Md.) 1864-1923, 1891-06-19
Tive Important Cases Decided.

1W0 xMpUTtAHG OAScS UeClUeu.
The Court of Appeals has sustained the
decision of Judge Waters, in the Circuit
Court for Hartford county, in two cases Of
more than usual public interest and import
ance. One Of them was the case of Edward
N. Allen vs.. the Commissioners of Hartford
County.
Mr.. Allen Is the owner of farm assessed
at $3.50 and encountered with mortgage
liens amounting to $16,250. Application was
made to the county commissioners to have
the whole of the assessment abated because
OF the mortgage liens, but the application
was refused. In default of payment of taxes
for 1887 and 1889 the farm was about to be
sold, .whereupon an Injunction was asked of
the Circuit Court to restrain the sale. The
Injunction was refused and Mr. Allen ap-
pealed.
In short opinion by Judge Fowler the
court decided that real estate which is mort
gagged ahould be assessed and taxed at its &C.
tual assessed value, without regard to mort
gage liens, and the amount of such liens
should not be first deducted from the assess
ed value in order to ascertain the taxable
value. In affirming the lower court the
opinion says the question is an old one which
has been definitely settled. In the language
OF /. Nevitt Steele it says:
"The State looks to the ownership of each
species of property, and money due on mort
gage is taxed in the hands Of the creditor.
The law does not tax the citizen, but the spe-
oiG IN Of bn 10
reference to his liabilities" The opinion
concludes as follows: "Under the act of
1841 mortgages were taxed, but under our
present revenue system they are exempt.
We have, however, in recent cases clearly
recognized the power of the Legislature, not.
withstandiDg the fifteenth article of the bill
ofrights, to tax the full value of both the
investments of mortgages in mortgages and
the property mortgaged to secure such invest
ments. The expediency of such taxation
is for the Legislature alone to determine"
the other case was that of the Bel Air So
cial, Literary, Musical and Dramatic Club.
The club having been convicted ofviolating
the local option law, States Attorney Web
ster, by authority of the Governor, at the
last February term petitioned the court
to annul the charter of the club. Counsel for
the club filed an affidavit and suggestion for
removal of the case. Judge Waters over
ruled the suggestion for removal and the case
went to the Court of Appeals. The latter sus-
tains Judge Waters. In an opinion written
by Judge Alvey the court decides that the
right of removal does not exist in cases of
proceedings instituted under the statute for
the forfeiture of chartered franchises for abuse,
misuse or non-use of such franchises. as pro-
yided by the code.
1.-THE provisions of the statute" the opin-
ion says, "clearly indicate that the jurisdic-
ton to be exercised in these cases is that alone
ofthe court where the corporation had its
origin or has its existence, and that the pro-
ceedings against it for forfeiture is not such as
was ever intended should be subject to re-
moval from one jurisdiction to another or,
IS It might be, from one part to some other
remote part of the State. The form and ma
ture Of the proceedings prescribed partake of
proceeding both at law and in equity, the
equitable procedure predominating, especial
~ after forfeiture declared. 1t has been held
by this court that an equity case is not with
IN the provision of the constitution, and is
not, therefore, subject to removal, and very
much for the same reasons this proceeding is
not subject to removal. After forfeiture de-
clared the proceeding is to be conducted as o
proceeding In equity is conducted for wind
Ing up and administering the assets
and affairs of an insolvent corporation
All the reasons that apply against the re-
moval of an equity case instituted for such
purpose equally apply here. The court below
overruled the application for removal, and in
80 doing we think there was no error"
The petition of the States Attorney de-
elares that the club has abused, misused and
,on-used its corporate powers and franchises,
and therefore its charter ought to be annull-
ed. The case will consequently be tried
uponissues of facts as above stated.