Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1913-07-11
The Clarksburg District Bond
Election Declared Void.

The Clarksburg District Bond
Election Declared Void.
Judge Peter has filed an opinion in the
case of Joseph Henderson ct al. VS.. the
County Commissioners of Montgomery coun.
ty. The Court says:
This cause is now before the Court on
general demurrer to the bill.
THE plaintiffs. who are registered and
qualified voters of and taxpayers in the Sec
ond Election District of Montgomery county
seek to enjoin the holding of an election in
pursuance of the following notice:
This is to give notice that special cleo
ton will be held in the Second Election
(Clarksburg) District in Montgomery coun-
ty Md, on the 18th day of July, A. d.
1918, between the hours of o'clock, A. M,
and O'Clock, P M, at the regular place
of holding elections in said district to de-
termine the question whether the Board
of County Commissioners of Montgomery
County, Maryland, shall issue six $1,000
Montgomery county bonds, numbered from
| to 6, inclusive, for $1,000 each payable
In the order of their number, bond num-
bered being payable one year from the
date of its issue, and one bond payable each
year thereafter in its numerical order, with
interest thereon at the rate of four and
one-half per cent per annum, interest
payable semi-annually. until the entire
issue shall have been redeemed by the
payment of the principal sum and the in
terest thereon, thereby causing a special
levy of IA 1-2 cents additional on the as
sessable property within the Second Elec-
ton (Clarksburg) District of said county
for the purpose of redeeming said bonds
as they mature by the payment of the
principal sum and the interest thereon"
The proceeds of said bond issue of
$4,000 to be applied to improving about
one mile of the public road leading from
Boyds to Clarksburg by macadamizing
same.
JOSEPH 7. WHITE,
President of the Board of County Com
missiOners for Montgomery County.
BERRY E. CLARK,
Clerk to County Commissioners.
while the primary object of the bill is
to restrain the holding of an election, its
ultimate object is to prevent an issue of
bonds by the defendants, which. if issued,
will have to be paid by the plaintiffs and
other taxpayers of the Second Election
District of Montgomery county. The only
power the commissioners have to issue
bonds for road improvements is derived
from the sections of the Code of Public
Local Laws to which reference has been
made. and that is a conditional power.
The first prerequisite to the exercise of this
power is the filing of the petition provided
for in section ASP. which, among other
things. must indicate desire for special
trict in which the road to be improved is
located. Upon an examination of the petit
ton asking for the improvement of the
road therein referred to no mention is
made as to how the improvement is to be
paid for, and the opinion of the Court is
that this omission renders the petition
fatally defective. This conclusion is
strengthened by the affidavits of fifteen of
the qualified signers of the petition to the
effect that they were misled into signing
the petition because of this omission.
THE bill alleges that a number of the
petitioners did not possess the statutory
qualifications but inasmuch as a large
majority of them did, the petition ought
not to be invalidated because it was signed
by some persons by whom it ought not to
have been signed. The fair presumption
is that the commissioners knew of the dis
qualification of those of the petitioners
who were not qualified and were not in
fluenced by their signatures to the petit
ton.
THE bill further alleges that the prelimi-
nary resolution of the commissioners was
posted in but four places in the district
AS the statute requires it to be posted in
five places, the Court finds that the failure
to observe this provision of the law is an
other defect in the proceedings of the COM
missioners. The proceedings of the COM
missioners down to and including the no
tice of the proposed election have been
carefully examined and no serious defect
has been found therein except as above
indicated.
How far is the power of the commits
sioners to make the proposed issue of bonds
affected by the defect in the petition and
the publication of the preliminary resolu-
ton?
1.-The County Commissioners are body
corporate; corporation charged with the
administration of the county affairs, and
can only do what their charter powers, by
express language or necessary implication.
permit, and the Jurisdiction as conferred
being special and limited must be admin
stered in the manner and according to the
terms of the law creating it, Barrickman
VS.. Commissioners of Hartford County. II
G. and j.. Sc; Cumberland r. r. Co. VS..
Martin, 100 Nd, 1877 The power of the
commissioners to issue bonds for road inn
provements is dormant until every pre-
requisite required by the law comforting the
power has been complied with. This must
be so because the law says so. To hold
otherwise, the court would have to mould
the law to suit its views as to what the
law ought to be. and if the court under
took to do this, it would be exercising a
legislative and not judicial function.
The petition for the road improvement
being insufficient and the publication of
the preliminary resolution not having been
in accordance with the requirements of the
statute. must hold that the resolution
calling the election which is sought to be
enjoined is null and void, and. therefore,
the defendants have not the right to hold
an election hereunder.
THE remaining question for considera-
ton is the right Of the plaintiffs to maintain
their suit. In Baltimore VS.. Gill, 81 Md
375, it is said, In this State the courts
have always maintained with jealous vigi-
lance the restaints and Limitations i'm