Case Name: John Kilty against John M. Gantt
Court: General Court of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1792-10
Citations: 3 Md. 105
Docket Number: 
Parties: John Kilty against John M. Gantt.
Judges: 
Reporter: Maryland reports, being a series of the most important law cases argued and determined in the Provincial Court and Court of Appeals of the then province of Maryland, from the year 1700 [i.e. 1658] down to the [end of 1799]
Volume: 3
Pages: 105–108

Head Matter:
GENERAL COURT,
OCTOBER TERM, 1792.
John Kilty against John M. Gantt.
THIS was an action on the case, in privilege, (the de* fendant being an attorney of the general court,) for money had and received.
The statement of the case prepared by the counsel for .the opinion of the court, set forth the act of assembly of November, 1788, c. 46. entitled “ An act to cede to congress a district of ten miles square in this state, for the seat of the government of the United States.”
The act of congress of the 16th of July, 1790, en» .titled “ An act for establishing the temporary and per» pianent seat of the government of the United States.”
The several proclamations of the president of the United States, in pursuance of the powers vested in him, locating the territory of ten miles square for the seat of the government. Also the appointment of the commissioners, and the deeds of trust to them by the several proprietors of the land within the territory.
The act of assembly pf November, 1791, c. 45. empowering the commissioners of the city to appoint a clerk for the recording of deeds of land within the said territory
It was admitted by the said statement, that the com? missioners in the said last act mentioned, did, in consequence of the said act, on the 5th day of January, 1792, appoint John Mackall Gantt (the defendant) clerk for recording deeds of lands within the territory of Columbia, as by the said act was Required ; and that the said John M. Gantt, in virtue of the said appointment, at various times before the commencement of this suit, recorded as clerk, several deeds of lands within the said territory, and received fees therefor, as fixed by the said act, to the amount of 110/. current money.
It was further admitted, that John Kilty, the plaintiff, was on the 16th of January, 1792, in consequence of the said last-mentioned act, appointed by the governor and council of the state, clerk for recording deeds of lands, and for certain other purposes within that part of the said territory of Columbia, which lies within- this state,, as appears by the following appointment, viz.
“ In council, January 16, 1792. Whereas by an act of assembly passed last sessioii, an office is dreated for recording deeds, and for certain other purposes, within that part of the territory of the United States, heretofore ceded by.this state to the United States, ahd by them accepted of, and the said office is vested by the said act in certain commissioners. And whereas the jurisdiction in and over the said territory yet remains in the state of Maryland. And whereas the executive are of opinion, that the appointment to this office is by the constitution expressly vested in them, and great inconveniences may arise from the want of a constitutional officer to carry the said act into effect, resolved unanimously, that the board will proceed to make the appointment: Whereupon John Kilty, Esq. was unanimously elected, and commission issued to him accordingly.
“ By order,
“ T. Johnson, jun. Clerk.”
Thereupon the said John Kilty, the plaintiff in this cause, was commissioned by his excellency the gover aor, with the usual forms, of which the said John Mac-hall Gantt had notice ; and that the said John Kilty hath, ever since his appointment, claimed the said office under and in virtue of the said appointment; and that all the deeds recorded, and fees received as aforesaid, by the said John M. Gantt have been recorded and received by him since he had notice of the appointment of the said John Kilty.
It was further admitted, that the said John M. Gantt, was a resident of Montgomery county, and within the territory aforesaid, and had been so three years antecedent to his appointment; and that the said John Kilty was not, at the time of his appointment, and never had been, a resident of Prince George’s or Montgomery county, or within the territory aforesaid.
It was further admitted, that the territory aforesaid lies part in Prince George’s county, and part in Montgomery county, in the state of Maryland. And if the court shall be of opinion, that under the several acts, proclamations and other matters mentioned and referred to in the statement, and under the constitution of the United States, and the form of government of this state, and under other public acts of the United States, or of this state, the plaintiff is in point of law entitled to recover, then judgment to be entered for the plaintiff for the sum of 110/. current money, damages and costs of suit; otherwise judgment of nonsuit to be entered.
Pinkney, Key and Kilty, for the plaintiff.
Martin (Attorney-General) and Mason, for the defendant. -
The following points were raised in the cause;
First. Whether an office for the registry of deeds is a civil office, and the officer appointed to keep such re~ gistry a civil officer, within the meaning of the 48th sec-lion of the form of government ?
Second. Whether, if the officer is a civil officer, and such part of the act of November session, 1791, c. 4Á, entitled “ An act concerning the territory of Columbia and the city of Washington,” which authorizes the commissioners rrientioned in the act* (or any two of them,) to appoint a clerk for recording of deeds of lands within the territory of Columbia, is void, and so decided, the plaintiff can recover* as he was not, when appointed, or even before, a resident of Prince George's or Montgomery counties ?
Third. Whether any act of the legislature of this, state, contrary to the constitution thereof, is void?
Fourth. Whether the general court can determine that any act of the legislature of this state is void, because contrary to the constitution ?
Fifth. Whether such part of the act of November session, 1791, c. 45. which authorizes the commissioners mentioned in the act, (or any two of them,) to appoint a clerk for the recording of deeds of lands within the territory of Columbia, is contrary to the constitution of this state ; arid whether the cession by this state, and. the qualified acceptance by congress, distinguishes the-act of November session, 1790, c. 45. from any other act made contrary to the constitution of this state ?

Opinion:
The Court
gave judgment on the case stated for the defendant;
The plaintiff appealed to the court of appeals, but the appeal was not prosecuted.