Evening capital. (Annapolis, Md.) 1884-1910, 1901-06-22

therefore. being directed only againsr the
County Commissioners. seeks 20 control them
IN q matter committed TO their Judgment and
what amount should be expended upon the
roads in the district here in question. They
have determined this and are now about 70
levy for Il and 10 pay it out for work which
has actually been performed upon the roads.
ut is not alleged that the County Commits
powers: nor that the levy, Il is alleged. they
are about - make Is not within the limit
ed against them nor anybody: on the contrary
any design 10 impute fraud is expressly dis
claimed. Bat the grounds urged for the relief
sought Il that the Board Of Road Conmissio-
ners. the instrumenfaiity which the Law sup
plies for the actual control and supervision OF
the work 70 be done upon the roads and
through which the money levied for that pur-
pose by the County Commissioners Is 70 be
applied 70 the procuring OF the work 70 be
done. have not observed the requirements or
aw in that the work was not done under the
system of contract as provided in certain sec
lions of the law.
And the bill expressly alleges that the con-
tracts for having the work done were not
made under the provisions of the law referred
10 in this connection. But it does not follow
from this a. the bill further alleges. that the
work done upon the roads IN the district
thus in question was unauthorized IN law.
Section 305 q. of the Act We are consid ering,
provides that should the board of County
Road Commissioners fail for any good cause TO
make contract for any road district or sec
ton il shall be their duty 70 employ some suit
able aud competent person. or persons. TO per
form such work and make Such needed repairs
upon any road or roads in such district or
section as they may deem necessary. and such
work and repair shall be under the supervision
of the District Road Com missioners- and when
necessary they may appoint some suitable
person TO superintend such work ana repairs.
upon such terms as they may think best for the
interest of the county. Here IS "A very broad
discretion conferred upon the Board If Coun-
~ Road Commissioners outside OF the contract
system which is provided for in the Act for
having work and repairs done upon the roads
In this case the work has been done.
Nothing is alleged against the action OF the
Board of County Road Commissioners except
its illegality. IL in doing the work upon the
roads this roard was acting under the section
Just quoted its action was legal by the express
provisions of the law. The dill OF the plaintiffs
of County Road Commissioners was not acting
under this section but. on the contrary its allie
cations go 20 show that il was so acting.
without extending this opinion further II
will be seen from the views expressed that its
conclusion must be that the plaintiffs Dill
clearly falls short of making any adequate
showing for cause of stopping by injunction
the contemplated or proposed levy or taxes
which IL seeks TO so restrain. This being so.
no allusion need be made TO the evidence
taken and returned in the cause further than
TO say that IL considered II would seem 10 tol-
low the allegations OF the bill and TO snow the
lie defects. The Injunction in the case must
be dissolved and the bill dismissed.
sit is thereupon this 18TH day of June, 1901,
adjudged. ordered and decreed that the in
Junction heretofore ordered in this case be
and the same rs hereby dissolved and the bill
OF the plaintiffs be and the same is hereby dis
missed. 1t is further adtudged. ordered and
decreed that the defendants. the Annapolis
Savings Institution, The Farmers National
Bank aud George Forbes pay the costs incur
red by them including the costs of taking and
returning defendants testimony, and that all
Other costs in the case be paid by the plain
"I.THoMAS JONES"