State v. Hendrickson

Court of Appeals of Maryland

State v. Hendrickson

15 Md. 205, 1860 Md. LEXIS 18

CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland

DecidedMarch 21, 1860

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 15 Md. 205 (State v. Hendrickson) 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 v. Hendrickson, 15 Md. 205, 1860 Md. LEXIS 18 (Md. 1860).

Pincite

Opinion

Tuck, J.,

delivered the opinion of this court.

These appeals depend on the same question and may be decided together.

The State sued L. B. Smith, and his sureties on his official bonds, as collector of Allegany county, for the years 1854 and 1855. The sureties, the present appellees, pleaded payment, and that they had been released by the Act of 1858, ch. 286, from all liability on these bonds, to which latter defence there was a demurrer, and j udgment having been rendered against the State, it appealed. The question submitted for our consideration is, whether that act is void in view of the 22nd sec. of Art. 3 of the Constitution ?

The argument, on the part of the State, suggests objections to this kind of legislation, which, if addressed to the consideration of the law makers, would doubtless have due weight, and this, probably, was done in the present instance; but they [208]*208affect the expediency of such Acts, and not the power of the Legislature to pass them.

(Decided March 21st, 1860.)

We regard this Act of Assembly as 'a mere release of claim on these bonds, and not as an appropriation, or use of the taxes levied to pay the public debt -of the State within the prohibition of the Constitution. That instrument did not, by the -clause relied upon, intend to deny to the Legislature the power to compromise and release claims of the State against its citizens, and, when exercised, we must suppose there was sufficient reason for it.

Judgments affirmed.

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

Tuck, J.,

delivered the opinion of this court.

These appeals depend on the same question and may be decided together.

The State sued L. B. Smith, and his sureties on his official bonds, as collector of Allegany county, for the years 1854 and 1855. The sureties, the present appellees, pleaded payment, and that they had been released by the Act of 1858, ch. 286, from all liability on these bonds, to which latter defence there was a demurrer, and j udgment having been rendered against the State, it appealed. The question submitted for our consideration is, whether that act is void in view of the 22nd sec. of Art. 3 of the Constitution ?

The argument, on the part of the State, suggests objections to this kind of legislation, which, if addressed to the consideration of the law makers, would doubtless have due weight, and this, probably, was done in the present instance; but they [208]*208affect the expediency of such Acts, and not the power of the Legislature to pass them.

(Decided March 21st, 1860.)

We regard this Act of Assembly as 'a mere release of claim on these bonds, and not as an appropriation, or use of the taxes levied to pay the public debt -of the State within the prohibition of the Constitution. That instrument did not, by the -clause relied upon, intend to deny to the Legislature the power to compromise and release claims of the State against its citizens, and, when exercised, we must suppose there was sufficient reason for it.

Judgments affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 Md. 205, 1860 Md. LEXIS 18, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hendrickson-md-1860.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack