State ex rel. Holland v. County Commissioners

46 Md. 621, 1877 Md. LEXIS 74
CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
DecidedJune 13, 1877
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 46 Md. 621 (State ex rel. Holland v. County Commissioners) 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
State ex rel. Holland v. County Commissioners, 46 Md. 621, 1877 Md. LEXIS 74 (Md. 1877).

Opinion

Robinson, J.,

delivered the opinion of Court.

By the Act of 1876, chap. 101, certain persons therein named were appointed a hoard of examiners, and empowered to make assessments upon owners of land lying on or near Wilkins Avenue, for the purpose of constructing and completing said avenue.

The examiners were directed to make a report of their proceedings to the Commissioners of Baltimore County, for their ratification, amendment or rejection, and the Act further provided that any person interested in the proceedings might appeal from the final order of ratification or rejection of the report of the examiners, to the Circuit Court for Baltimore County.

The examiner having made the assessments according to the provisions of the Act, reported the same to the commissioners, and the latter being of opinion that the Act of 1876, was unconstitutional, rejected the report and passed an order quashing all the proceedings thereunder.

Thereupon the appellants applied to the Circuit Court for Baltimore County for a writ of mandamus, to compel the commissioners to carry out the provisions of the Act of 1876, and this appeal is taken from a pro forma order of the Court refusing to grant the writ as prayed.

From this statement of facts, it is quite clear, the appellants are not entitled to the writ of mandamus, because by the express terms of the Act, they have a full and adequate remedy by an appeal to the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. This is not a case in which the commissioners have refused to perform an act commanded by law, for the contrary power was expressly vested in them either to ratify or reject the report of the examiners, and to all persons aggrieved thereby an appeal was provided to the Circuit Court of the county.

Entertaining these views the appeal must be. dismissed.

Jppeal dismissed.

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

Related

Eck v. State Tax Comm. of Md.
103 A.2d 850 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1954)
County Commrs. of A.A. Co. v. Buch
58 A.2d 672 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1948)
Wasena Housing Corp. v. Levay
52 A.2d 903 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1947)
Stark v. State Board of Registration
19 A.2d 716 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1941)
Applestein v. Mayor of Baltimore
143 A. 666 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1928)
West v. Musgrave
139 A. 551 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1927)
Hoffman v. Sams
2 Balt. C. Rep. 332 (Baltimore City Superior Court, 1905)
O'Brian v. County Commissioners of Baltimore
51 Md. 15 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1879)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
46 Md. 621, 1877 Md. LEXIS 74, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-holland-v-county-commissioners-md-1877.