Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1928-07-15
PROPERTY OWNERS
LOSE TAX FIGHT
Maryland Appeals Court RuI-
ina Favors Suburban SAM
tary Commission.

BALTIMORE. July 1.-THE Court of
Appeals of Maryland has just handed
down a decision which sustains the
right of the washington Suburban
Sanitary Commission to collect special
assessments for benefits to property In
MONTGOMERY and Prince Georges
Counties.
The decision settles controversy that
has existed for several years between
property owners in the metropolitan
district of Maryland adjacent to the
District of Columbia and the Sanitary
Commission over charges for both water
and sewerage connections.
The decision was rendered In the case
of an appeal from the Circuit Court OF
Montgomery County OF Renne NOEL.
who objected to increased assessments
made under legislative authority of 1927.
The plaintiff filed a bill in the Circuit
Court of Montgomery County to restrain
the commission from collecting sup
Elementary charge on the ground that
an earlier statute had been declared
invalid in the case of the Sanitary
Commission versus Scrivener. The COM
mission filed demurrer to the bill.
which was overruled by the court and
the appeal to the Court Of Appeals
followed.
Objection to Increase.
The complainant objected to the
increased front-foot charges on the
grounds that the act of 1927 attempted
to reverse the decision In the Scrivener
case and in so doing assumed judicial
function; that no benefit for which an
additional charge could be levied would
accrue to the compliments property
from further construction and installa-
f@r
charge would be invalid; that the act
of 1927, properly construed, gives
authority only for the original assess
ment previously recognized by the
Court of Appeals rs valid. and not to
the increase: and that the act of 1927
Is void. because It attempts to author
lie an assessment In varying amounts
for benefit which 1t states is to be
equal,
In reversing the decision of the Mont
gcmery Circuit Court and dismissirs
the bill the Court of Appeals held:
That after first assessment has been
found unauthorized, new assessment
may be authorized by the Legislature
and the Legislature may fix the amount
Of the charge to be assessed, and the
act adopting the form of an original
assessment, may validity provide for the
levy of exactly the amount levied
under the previous invalid proceeding
That an ect subsequent providing
the legislative foundation previously
found lacking. is not reversal of the
Judgment OF the court, and Is not an
assumption of judicial function, and
the act of 1927, ratifying and con-
firming the assessment of the amount
as previously charged. is not invalid for
that reason.
Benefit Assessment Final.
THAT a special benefit assessment by
the Legislature directly upon its finding
that the land charged Is benefited, Is
valid and final. and beyond interference
by the courts, in the absence of
showing that the determination Is
plainly arbitrary In some respects. and
an abuse of power
That the Legislature can so classify
properties for apportionment of the
costs. that the courts will not interfere.
except when the classification is shown
to have been palpably arbitrary and
constituting a plain abuse Of power.
That the additional front-foot assess
ment on this property should not be
held unconstitutional merely because
there had already been assessment
levied upon 1t.
THAT 1t was not arbitrary and an
abuse of power for the Legislature to
cause the cost of the installation OF the
trunk line sewers and water mains re-
quired to meet the needs of the in
creased population. and which caused
the increased assessment to be APP
portioned as part of the front-foot
benefit charges.
THAT the act of 1927 in ratifying and
confirming the assessments standing
on the commissions books on Deem
Der 81. 1926, did not intend to ratify
and confirm only the legal assessments
made before 1925, for there was ex-
pressiy included In the ratification of
benefit charges by original levy or by
increase
THAT on the specific facts alleged in
the bill, no invalidity on the ground
of lack of uniformity of assessments
Is auDarent