The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1895-12-12
A CELEBRATED CASE.
Decision of the Court of Appeal
the II p. Tasker Case.

county, as a precedent of peculiar
interest, involving as it does, points
that have never before been adjudi-
Gated by any court in Maryland nor
in any other State in the Union.
We are indebted to Mr.. Tasker's
attorneys for the following official
copy of the decision which will be
read with interest by members of
the bar as well as by the tax payers
of Allegany and Garrett counties;
Court Of appeals Of Mary1and Oc-
tOber Term, 1895, Hiram p. Tas-
ker rs. tie County Commissioners
Of Garret County.
Judge Fowler delivered the opin-
ion of the court.
The question presented by this
appeal is whether the Commission
ers of Garrett co2nty are lis5le to
be sued upon the contract which is
set out in the plaintiffs declaration.
This contract is evidenced by an
order passed by the defendants by
which it appears that the plaintiff
was authorized and directed to trace
up and compile book of abstracts
of title for the use of the county
commissioners office, of all unas.
ses Sed lands in SAID county. 1t twas
provided by this order that upon
the adoption of the plaintiffs re-
port he should be allowed fair and
reasonable compen sation for said
work. The first count in the dec
laration was struck out on motion
of the plaintiff, and the defendant
demurred to it as thus amended
The second count is based upon the
theory that the plaintiff performed
his part of the contract, and that
although the defendants examined,
ratified, approved and adopted his
work and reports, refused to coin
pensate him therefor. The third
count alleges that the defendant
received and examined the work of
the plaintiff, but fraudulenty re-
fused to adopt it.
1t must be conceded, We think,
that if the defendants, as commits
sioners of Garrett county, had
power to make the contract each
count of the amended nsrr- saets-oat
a good cause of action.
For while it is so well settled that
it is unnecessary to cite authorities
to sustain IT., that municipal bodies
like the defendants act with limited
corporate authority, and persons
dealing with them must be held to
know the extent and limit of such
corporate powers, yet not every act
they may do, or every officer they
may appoint can be specifically
designated in their charters. And,
therefore our own code, act 25, re-
lating to county commissioners,
provides in section one that they
shall have power to appoint agents,
officers and servants required for
county purposes, not otherwise
provided by law or the constitution.
And the whole question, therefore,
is whether first, it is the duty of
the county commissioners to assess
for taxation unassessed lands, and
secondly whether any officer whom
they are either by law or the consti-
tuition specifically authorized to
appoint, could provide them with
the information necessary to enable
such assessment to be effectually
and properly made. That 1t is the
duty of the commissioners to assess
such lands is, of course clear. Code,
article 81, section 10, provides
"that in all cases where discoveries
of assessable property are made by
the collectors or the county commits
stone either from
the returns of clerks, registers or
assessors or in any other way, the
county missioners shall assess
the same" Instead of constituting
the conceded limited powers of the
defendants so as to diminish their
ability to employ agents to aid in
subjecting the owners of all lands
to taxation as required by the 18th
oct "a tba R,1I of R;1bt, mo ebo,Jd