Evening capital. (Annapolis, Md.) 1884-1910, 1901-06-22
JUDGE JONES' OPINION.
DECISION RENDERED THEEIGHTH
DISTRICT
Road Injunction Oase-John 7. Hall vs..
County Commissioners.

dga4uSt tue Oyuutg 1oDuffSSloUerS. 10
prevent the payment of certain certifi-
Gates issued for road work in the Eighth
District, which was argued few DAYS
ago, was decided Wednesday by Chief
Judge /. Thomas Jones.
The following is the full text of the
decision:
This suit was brought 10 restrain by in
junction the County Commissioners from i'm
Guiding IN their levy for the current year an
allowance for certain expenses incurred in
work OF repairs and Improvements upon the
public roads of the Eighth Election District Of
the county, and from paying certain certiti-
Gates issued by the said Commissioners for
such work.
'.As promptness is required in disposing of
the question thus raised that the public con-
venience may not suffer. Twill proceed 10 state
briefly the conclusions reached upon as care
ful and full consideration of the proceedings
In the case and the views presented thereupon
as IL has been found practicable 10 give them
in the time allowed and with the pressure of
other duties. This will be done without an
elaboration OF reasons or an extended refer
ence 10 authorities. Well recognized princi-
pies would seem 20 50 far control the case as 10
make this unnecessary II IL was practicable.
THE parties before the Court are certain of
the taxpayers resident in the particular local
ity 20 be affected by the levy in question. the
County Commissioners, the Treasurer of the
county. who may be treated here as a nominal
party and certain defendants who have inter
OF some of the certificates of Indebtedness re-
ferrcd to in the bill of the eomplainants. 1t IS
not perceived now these intervening defend
onts have any standing before the Court upon
the showing made by them.1
I'm their petition to the Court asking to be
permitted to come in as parties TO defend in the
suit, they merely alleged themselves 10 be the
holders Of certain certificates of Indebtedness
issued to them. Under what authority of law
certificates of Indebtedness could be issued TO
them, which of themselves would constitute a
contract between them and the County Com
missioners or which, even p3fDtd Jacie. would.
by their mere production. evidence a claim
against the county, Is not made to appear and
IL would not seem from the facts of this case
that any such authority could be made to APP
pear.
In the answers which they subsequently fill
ed. they allege themselves to be the holders of
certain certificates of Indebtedness issued by
the County Commissioners which they 'pur-
chased in good faith and for valuable consid-
Grafton from the holders themselves. still
not making IL appear, however, how these
certificates are invested with any legal sancti-
" that would make them in themselves evil
dences of valid contracts with the county so
that the mere possession of them would give
lprttaa yac,e EVEN valid claims upon the coun-
ty for payment. Passing this without further
remark. the proceedings here show that to
these answers there was general replication
which put in issue all the aYerments thereof.
Against this denial of the ayermcnts of their
answers these Intervening defendants did not
even produce evidence that they were the
holders of certificates, nor were these certit-
Gates offered In evidence for what proof they
might afford of claims against the county; nor
were the facts shown Co substantiate the
claims made under them. This, too, was in the
face of the allegations of the bill that all so
called certificates of Indebtedness which had
been issued by the County commissioners in
this particular connection were illegal and
void and were without any legal foundation.
Lest the action which the Court feels itself
compelled to take in this case may, notwith-
standing what has already been said in regard
to the so-called certificates of Indebtedness re
ferred to in the proceedings. be construed into
an authority 10 the County Commissioners to
pay them as they appear TO nave been issued
that is bearing interest-it may be proper 20
say here that 1 am unable to lind in law any
warrant or sanction for the issue of interest
bearing certificates by the County Commission
ers in respeat TO such expenses as are here in
question more than they would have as TO amy
other expense for the payment of which the
laws provides through the action of these
Commissioners. 1t would seem to be too clear
for argument that in the absence of express
authority they have no power TO issue inter
est-bearing obligations, ana, IN my opinion;
the payment of interest upon these So-called
certificates of Indebtedness viii be an unau-
thorizcd payment.
..What has been said indicates that the con-
troversy here is between the plaintiffs in the
suit and the County Commissioners. The Court
is embarrassed by the fact that this proceed
lug is not to prevent the carrying out OF an
illegal contract or illegal contracts proposed
or entered into by the County Commissioners
but TO prevent payment for work actually per-
formed under whatever contracts there were
in the case, and thus the action OF the Court
that is here invoked, II the prayer OF plalntins
bill be granted. must operate ana that with
great hardship upon parties VINO are not
brought before the Court so as to have their
rights in the premises fairly adJudlcated. we
must not consider. however what particular
effect the consideration just adverted TO ought
to have upon the present proceeding as there
are others apparent which must determine the
action of the Court thereon.
1.-THE questions here have arisen upon the
construction TO be given 70 the Act OF ISIS,
Chapter 25l, which provides for the conStruc-
ton. Improvement and repair OF the roads in
Anne Arundel county. The Act creates
County Board of Road Commissioners and a
District Board of Road Commissioners and
confers upon these boards certain powers ana
imposes upon them certain duties with re
spect to the construction. Improvement and
Keeping in repair OF the public roads OF the
county. 1 may not have very clear concep-
ton of the precise dlfiiculty which. IN the
construction and practical operation OF this
law khas given rise to the present litigation,
but il seems TO be due in some measure at least
TO the confusion as TO the power and control
of the County Commissioners and of the
Road Commissioners county and DISTRICT
over the expenditures to be made upon
the public roads. The proceedings at least
suggest this in that they contain intimations
that the amount of expenditure upon the
roads in any given districts OF the county i q,
the discretion of the Road Commissioners, and
that the discretion of the County Commission
ers is so far subordinated TO that OF the Road
Commissioners that within the limitations
Imposed by the statute the County Commission
ers must levy taxes TO the extent that the
Boad Commissioners. in their Judgment, may
make bills or create expenses in respect to
work upon the roads. Ii such has been the
construction of the law in its practical opera
ton, ii is serious error, me County OoinInls-
sioners are invested with the control and man
aVement of the finances of the county, and II
is their Judgment and discretion that are TO
determine the expenditures TO be made for the
public needs and TO guard and protect the in
terests of the public in that regard. The law
here in question could not nave oeen, ana was
not intended TO deprive them of this control
and MANAGEMENT in so important a matter OF
public concern as providing Tor the eXpendl-
lure to be made upon the public roads.
The law provides that the taxes raised for
road purposes in any election district are to be
applied TO the roads of that particular district.
In levying these taxes it is the Judgment of
the County Commissioners that is TO deter
mine the amount that it will be eNpedient and
proper to be levied for and applied to such
purpose. The board of Road Commissioners is
the inStrumentality through which the funds
SO provided are to be applied to the purpose
intended. That the power of the county
Commissioners over the levy for road eNpen-
penses is as stated appears from section 2Ol of
the act here in question. In that section re
ouirinS the County Commissioners 10 levy for
the expenses for roads and 20 keep separate
accounts. etc. for each district, there Is a pro
viso .'that the amount of taxes so 10 be levied
and collected on the property within each
election district. and thus applied 10 the I'M
provement of the roads Tin any year shall not
be less than ten cents on the one hundred
dollars. nor more than one per cent of the total
assessed valuation of the property WITHIN such
election district tthe words included IN brack-
cts appearing by misprint in section lsol Here
are nxed limits to the levy that the County
Commissioners can make. The inconsistency
of imposing upon these Commissioners the
duty to levy for expenses for given purpose
and nj the same time a limitation upon their
newer To lew and then TO give TO another au-
fhority the power over the expenses that are
TO ht so levied for is apparent. The duty TO
observe the limitations imposed carries with