Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1913-12-19
Late Court Decisions,

week in cases pending in the Circuit Cour
here, from which the following extracts
are made;
TAKoMA PARK TAX UPHELD.
George N. Beale VS.. The Town of Takoms
Park. Katharine c. Beale VS.. Same.
These suits were instituted simultane.
ously to restrain the collection of specia
improvement taxes by sale of the re.
spective parcels of land against which they
have been assessed by the defendant. q
municipal corporation.
The solicitors for the plaintiffs have pre-
sented brief in which they submit fol
the Courts consideration the three follow
ing propositions of law. viz:
a. The defendant should be restrained
because it was about to sell more land
than was necessary to satisfy the taxes
interest, etc, CHARGED.
~ The tax should be declared illegal
and void and the defendant enioined be-
cause of improper items included in the
total amount of the tax.
"3. The tax should be declared illegal
and void and the defendant enjOined be-
cause the adjudication, if any, that public
health, safety or comfort requiring the con-
struction of the sidewalk was not fair and
impartial, and was result of other cir
cumstances than those of health. safety or
comfort"
Respecting the first proposition, the Court
said; by section ACE of its charter the
defendant is empowered to collect special
improvement taxes in the same manner
as general taxes due said town are now
or may hereafter be collected under the
provisions of the charter of said town.
The mode of procedure for the collection
of general taxes due the town of Takoma
Park will be found in sections from 588 to
sos, inclusive, of its charter. By section
588 it is provided that the treasurer shall
offer at public sale all real property or so
much thereof as may be necessary to pay
delinquent taxes, penalties. etc.. owing
thereon. By section 500 it is provided on
the day of sale the treasurer shall, at the
time and place designated in his notice.
offer for sale so much of the real estate
advertised or posted in the name Of each
delinquent taxpayer as shall be necessary
to pay the taxes. etc.. due from him. 1t
is provided by section 500, The person
who offers to pay the taxes. penalties and
costs due from the owner of any piece or
pieces of property for the smallest portion
of the same shall be considered the pur-
chaser. If no person bids for less guam
tity than the whole. then the whole shall
be offered.
THE clear legislative intent was that the
whole of the property subject to the assess
ment should be advertised for sale and
that the smallest part thereof should be
sold to the person who was willing to pay
the amount of taxes due on the whole. In
adopting this method of procedure the Leg
islature has undertaken to prevent more of
delinquent taxpayer property from being
sold than was necessary to pay the exact
VI NilC dooCooiliCAL dBdltlol tHuS
recognizing the principle stated in Magraff
VS.. Cummings Heirs, 81 Md. 585. and
Dyer VS.. Boswell, SO Md, All. in which
it was held that it was the duty of col
lectOr of taxes to sell no more than is
reasonably necessary to pay the taxes and
CHARGES thereon when division is practi-
cahla without iniuru II yuao tho d,,fv Of
the defendant to advertise for sale all of
the property subject to the tax. and when
the sale came on to be made to sell it. not
to the highest bidder for the WHOLE but to
the person who would take the smallest
quantity and pay the tax due. If the whole
of the property advertised should be offered
and sold to the highest bidder, then the
sale would be void because not made in
accordance with the aw-H0well vs. Lane,
So Cal. 213 but il no person was willing
to pay the tax for less than the whole
then the sale of the whole would be valid
while this mode of procedure in tax
sales is novel in Maryland. it has been
adopted and pursued with the approval of
the courts in other States. and this Court
could not interfere withits execution with
out invading an exclusive legislative func-
ton
AS to the second proposition the Court
declared that no improper items had been
included in the total amount of taxes.
Disposing of the third proposition. the
Court held that no Partially had been
shown.
ut is thereupon ordered and decreed. -
reads the opinion in conclusion, that the
injunction heretofore herein granted be
and the same is hereby dissolved that
the plaintiffs bill of complaint be and the
same hereby is dismissed, and that the
plaintiffs pay the costs Of this suit to be
taxed by the Clerk. This decree is passed
in accordance with the opinion of the
Court filed in No. 1884 Equity"
LAND TITLE DECLARED Coop.
Bertram B. Burroughs ct al VS.. Theodore
J. Burroughs ct al
By virtue Of decree passed in this
cause on the 18th day of April, 1912. Robert
b. Peter. the trustee named in said decree,
on the 18th day of April. 1918. sold at private
sale, for cash, to Joseph W. Thompson for
the sum of $4,000 all of the property de-
creed to be sold, consisting Of two parcels
of land. one containing SO acres and the
other 81 l-8 acres. being the same land
which VIM. A. Burroughs obtained from
Sarah F. Hopkins and Hiram W. Hopkins.
her husband. by deed dated the 18th day
of March, 1904. This sale having been
duly reported to this Court the purchaser
excepted to the ratification thereof. be-
cause. as he alleges. the trustee cannot
convey to him good and merchantable
title to the land he purchased.
After considering some record evidence
and the testimony of several persons re-
siding in the neighbOrhOOd and having a
long and intimate acquaintance with the