McCrea v. Billingslea

Court of Appeals of Maryland

McCrea v. Billingslea

43 A. 42, 89 Md. 767

DecidedJuly 5, 1899

StatusPublished

This text of 43 A. 42 (McCrea v. Billingslea) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McCrea v. Billingslea, 43 A. 42, 89 Md. 767 (Md. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Briscoe, J.,

The Court said: “ This is a petition for a mandamus to compel the Clerk of the Circuit Court for Carroll County to issue to the appellant a license to sell liquor and keep an ordinary in Carroll County, under the provisions of sections 67 — 72, of Art. 56, Code Public General Laws. This proceeding is based upon the assumption that the Act of 1894, ch. 6 (the local law now in force in Carroll County), was invalid and unconstitutional because it imposed upon the Judges of that Court a non-judicial duty. In the case of McCrea v. Roberts, ante, p. 238, we have considered the Act of 1894, ch. 6, and held it to be valid and constitutional. The application, then, in this case, being under the general and not the local law, it is quite clear that it must fail. The local law of Carroll County being in force, the application must be made under that law. For this reason the order of Court dismissing the appellant’s petition for mandamus will be affirmed.”

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by

Briscoe, J.,

The Court said: “ This is a petition for a mandamus to compel the Clerk of the Circuit Court for Carroll County to issue to the appellant a license to sell liquor and keep an ordinary in Carroll County, under the provisions of sections 67 — 72, of Art. 56, Code Public General Laws. This proceeding is based upon the assumption that the Act of 1894, ch. 6 (the local law now in force in Carroll County), was invalid and unconstitutional because it imposed upon the Judges of that Court a non-judicial duty. In the case of McCrea v. Roberts, ante, p. 238, we have considered the Act of 1894, ch. 6, and held it to be valid and constitutional. The application, then, in this case, being under the general and not the local law, it is quite clear that it must fail. The local law of Carroll County being in force, the application must be made under that law. For this reason the order of Court dismissing the appellant’s petition for mandamus will be affirmed.”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A. 42, 89 Md. 767, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccrea-v-billingslea-md-1899.