McMullen v. Shepherd

104 A. 424, 133 Md. 157, 1918 Md. LEXIS 110
CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
DecidedJune 20, 1918
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 104 A. 424 (McMullen v. Shepherd) 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
McMullen v. Shepherd, 104 A. 424, 133 Md. 157, 1918 Md. LEXIS 110 (Md. 1918).

Opinion

*158 Constable, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

James S. Shepherd, Land Commissioner of the State of Maryland, filed his petition praying that Hugh A. McMullen, Comptroller of the State of Maryland, he directed to issue his warrant' upon the Treasury of the State of Maryland in favor of the said petitioner in the amount of twenty-five per cent (25%) of the moneys paid by the petitioner into the Treasury, as shown by accounts filed by him with the Comptroller on the 31st day of March, and on the 30th day of September, 1917. The Comptroller filed an answer to the said petition denying that the petitioner was entitled to the twenty-five per cent. (25%) of moneys referred to in his petition, and further averring that Chapter 318 of the Acts of the General Assembly of Maryland of 1900, codified as section 13 of Article 54 of the Annotated Code of Maryland, upon which alone the petitioner based his alleged right to the writ of mandamus, was unconstitutional, null and void so far as the same provides that “25% of such moneys so received the Treasurer shall pay over on warrant of the Comptroller semi-annually to the Commissioners of the Land Office.”

The petitioner demurred to the answer and upon the Court overruling the demurrer, the writ was ordered issued, and this appeal taken. This appeal brings up for decision the right of the land commissioners to receive, by way of compensation, fees of his office in addition to the salary provided by the Constitution.

The only question involved, is whether Chapter 318 of the Acts of 1900' is obnoxious to the Constitution of Maryland, and therefore void. It is a well settled rule that “The Legislature has all power, except such as is expressly denied to it by the State or Federal Constitution.” Thrift v. Laird, 125 Md. 70.

The constitutional provisions relating to the Land Commissioner are found in sections 4 and 5 of Article 7, and are as follows:

*159 “Sec. 4. There shall be a Commissioner of the Land Office, who shall be appointed by the Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, who shall hold his office during the term of the Governor, by whom he shall have been appointed, and until his successor shall be appointed and qualified. He shall perform such duties as are now required of the Commissioner of the Land Office, or such as may hereafter be prescribed by law, and shall also be the Keeper of the Chancery Records. He shall receive a salary of one thousand, five hundred dollars per annum, to be paid out of the Treasury, and shall charge such fees as are now, or may be hereafter, fixed by law. He shall make a semi-annual report of all the fees of his office, both as Commissioner of the Land Office, and as Keeper of the Chancery Records, to the Comptroller of the Treasury, and shall pay the same semi-annually into the Treasury.”
“Sec. 5. The Commissioner of the Land Office shall also, without additional compensation, collect, arrange, classify, have charge of, and- safely keep all papers, records, relics and other memorials connected with the early history of Maryland, not belonging to any other office.”

The Constitution of 1851, section 6 of Article 7, provided that the commissioner should sit as- judge of the Land Office and should receive a salary therefor the sum of two hundred dollars per year and should retain for the performance of the other duties of his office, as compensation, the fees received. By Chapter 415 of the Acts of 1853, and Chapter 149 of the Acts of 1854, the commissioner was authorized to receive fees for recording papers and proceedings, in land cases, and further to deduct as his compensation twenty-five per cent (25%) from all moneys on account of public lands, the remaining seventy-five per cent (75%) to be paid to the State. By Chapter 208 of the Acts of 1862 the commissioner •was made the custodian of the records of the Court of Chancery and was paid a salary of $500 per annum.

*160 As we have seem from a perusal of the present constitutional provision relating to this office, it is apparent that somewhere between the time of the adoption of the Constitution of 1851 and the Constitution of 1867 it changed from a fee office to a salary office and we will find that this change was made by the framers of the Constitution of 1864 and continued with slight modifications in the Constitution of 1867.

In construing the Constitution we are to consider the circumstances attending its adoption and what appears to have been the understanding of the people when they adopted it, and one of the useful and most helpful sources is the debates of the Convention. Bandel v. Isaacs, 13 Md. 202; Baltimore City v. State, 15 Md. 376; Bonsal v. Yellott, 100 Md. 481; Jackson v. State, 87 Md. 191.

According to the Debates of the Maryland Constitutional Convention of 1861, as found in Volume 1, at page 163, the Committee on Civil Offices made a report to the Convention in which they recommended that the Land Commissioner should be elected by the people for the term of six years, and should receive a salary of eighteen hundred, ($1800) dollars, and should turn all of the fees of his office into the treasury.

On page 1089 of the second volume of the “Debates,’' the section referring to the Land Office was first taken up for debate. The section was read and the President of the Convention said:

“The President: I have been requested by the Commissioner of the Land Office to state to the convention that the salary fixed in this section does not amount to what he actually receives at the present time. I think he said the amount he now receives was not less than two thousand dollars. I make this statement for the consideration of the convention at his request.’
“Mr. Briscoe: 'Does that include the compensation he receives for performing the duties of Keeper of the Chancery Records?’
*161 “The President: 'My understanding was that it applied to both offices.’
“Mr. Daniel: 'He referred a petition to us on that subject, asking that his salary be fixed, instead of giving him fees. I wish to say further that I think the report of the Commissioner of the Land Office shows that some years his compensation has gone down as low as $1,500 or $1,600; on other years it has gone up as high as $2,700 or $2,800. It shows that his fees are now decreasing, and in a few years they will doubtless not amount to as much as $1,800. That consideration influenced the committee to fix his salary at some reasonable sum, and they considered that $1,800 was about a fair compensation under all the circumstances.’
“The President: 'I understand that the Commissioner of the Land Office receives a stipulated salary, as Keeper of the Chancery Records, under the existing law, of $500; and that all the fees are to go into the Treasury.’
“Mr.

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

Related

HON. BERNSTEIN v. State
29 A.3d 267 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2011)
Abrams v. Lamone
919 A.2d 1223 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2007)
Schisler v. State
907 A.2d 175 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2006)
Hornbeck v. Somerset County Board of Education
458 A.2d 758 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1983)
Jory v. Martin
56 P.2d 1193 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1936)
State v. Williams
4 Balt. C. Rep. 13 (Baltimore City Court, 1919)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
104 A. 424, 133 Md. 157, 1918 Md. LEXIS 110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcmullen-v-shepherd-md-1918.