Case Name: Thomas H. Egan against Charles County Court
Court: General Court of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1793-10
Citations: 3 Md. 169
Docket Number: 
Parties: Thomas H. Egan against Charles County Court.
Judges: Goldsborough and J. T. Chase (Judges) were of opinion, that the tax was authorized by the declaration of rights, and gave no opinion on the other point. Judgment affirmed. There was an appeal to the court of appeals, where the appeal was dismissed, at June term, 1797.
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: 169–170

Head Matter:
GENERAL COURT,
OCTOBER TERM, 1793.
Thomas H. Egan against Charles County Court.
A CERTIORARI issued in October, 1791, to remove a motion, &c. The record transmitted to the general court states that, in September, 1791, “ on motion of Tho mas ¡Jenry Egan (who, antecedent to the act of assembly for the better administration of justice in the several counties of this state, was an attorney of Charles county' court) to be admitted to enter his appearance to several suits now in court depending, the said Thomas Henry Egan not having taken out a license of admission agreeably to the said act; it is ordered, adjudged and determined by the court, that the motion aforesaid be not allowed.”
The county court refused to permit Thomas H. Egan to practise law in that court without taking out a license and paying therefor according to the act of 1791, new modelling the county courts; and the question for the general court was, 1st. Whether the tax on attorneys at law, imposed by the above act, or the money directed to be paid for a license was a poll tax, and against the declaration of rights ? 2. If so, whether the said tax was void on that account.
Key and Kilty, for the appellants.
Martin, (Attorney-General,) for the appellees.-

Opinion:
Chase, Ch. J.
was of opinion that the tax was in opposition to the declaration of rights, and therefore void.
Goldsborough and J. T. Chase (Judges) were of opinion, that the tax was authorized by the declaration of rights, and gave no opinion on the other point. Judgment affirmed. There was an appeal to the court of appeals, where the appeal was dismissed, at June term, 1797.