Case Name: George Wells, late Treasurer of Anne Arundel County vs. George Thomas
Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1890-02-05
Citations: 72 Md. 26
Docket Number: 
Parties: George Wells, late Treasurer of Anne Arundel County vs. George Thomas.
Judges: The cause was argued for the appellant before Alvey, C. J., Stone, Robinson, Irving, Fowler, and McSherry, J. The Court declined to hear counsel for the appellee.
Reporter: Maryland Reports
Volume: 72
Pages: 26–28

Head Matter:
George Wells, late Treasurer of Anne Arundel County vs. George Thomas.
Appeal — Sale of Heal estate for Taxes — Charges and Expenses — Act of 1884, ch. 462.
From an order of the Circuit Court determining what are the legal charges and expenses attending a sale of real estate for overdue taxes made by the authority of the treasurer of Anne Arundel County, under the Act of 1884, ch. 462, no appeal will lie, the Act being a special one, applying only to that 'county, and giving no right of appeal.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County.
Certain property was sold by the appellant as treasurer of Anne Arundel County, for overdue taxes, and the appellee became the purchaser. After the sale the purchaser filed his petition in the Circuit Court, objecting to certain charges made by the appellant on account of said sale, as illegal and unjust, to wit,, the charge of five dollars for examining the title to the property, five dollars for the auctioneer’s fee, fourteen dollars for reporting and ratifying the sale, four dollars for the publication of the order nisi, one dollar and fifty cents for publishing notices, and one dollar and twenty-five cents cost of levy, &c.' The Court (Smith and Jones, J.,) sus tained the exceptions to the charge of five dollars for the auctioneer’s fee, of five dollars for examining the title, of ten dollars for reporting and ratifying the sale, and so much of the cost of levy as was in excess of the amount allowed the sheriff or constable for similar service. Subsequently the appellee tendered to the appellant the purchase money, less the charges that the Court refused to allow, and demanded a deed for the property. This demand being refused, a mandamus was applied for to compel the appellant to execute a deed. By agreement of counsel the Court passed an order pro forma, directing the mandamus to be issued. From this order the present appeal was taken.
The cause was argued for the appellant before Alvey, C. J., Stone, Robinson, Irving, Fowler, and McSherry, J. The Court declined to hear counsel for the appellee.
John Ireland,, for the appellant.
James W. Owens, for the appellee.

Opinion:
Stone, J.,
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The only object of this ajipeal seems to be to get this Court to review the action of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, in deciding what are the proper legal charges and expenses attending a sale of real estate made by the authority of the treasurer of Anne Arundel County under the Act of 1884, ch. 462. This can not be done. The Act of 1884, ch. 462, is a special law applying to Anne Arundel County only. No appeal is given by that Act to this Court, and none therefore exists. No appeal would lie directly from this order of the Circuit Court fixing the legal expenses attending a tax sale in Anne Arundel, nor can that question be indirectly brought before us upon a mandamus. The action of the Circuit Court is final upon that question. Meyer vs. Steuart, et al., 48 Md., 423; Margraff vs. Cunningham's Heirs, 57 Md., 585, and many other cases.
(Decided 5th February, 1890.)
This Court may have, in some cases, in deference to the wishes of both parties, expressed an opinion upon questions that were not before this Court as a matter of right. But the practice is not to be commended. If the Legislature had intended us to review the action of the Circuit Court in cases like, the present, it would doubtless have made such provision in the Act. In default of such provision, we must leave the question where it seems to us the Legislature intended it to be left, in the hands of the Circuit Court.
Aj^eal dismissed.