| Lucy Williams and Sydney Turner Dyer v. William F. Broening, Mayor of Baltimore, The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, a body corporate, and Marion
McKee, Robert H. Carr, and R. Frank Smith, Supervisors of Elections of the City of Baltimore 135 Md. 226
Case filed 9 October 1919 in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City. Injunction denied 9 October 1919 by Judge James P. Gorter. Order for appeal filed 9
October 1919. Judgement reversed; remanded to the Circuit Court to issue injunction and defendant ordered to pay costs, mandate filed 23 October 1919 with per
curium opinion. Injunction issued 31 October 1919. Opinion filed by Court of Appeals 21, November 1919. Defendant paid costs 4 December 1919.
Trial Court Records:
BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT
(Equity Docket A, Misc.) 1919, Williams et al. v. Broening et al. 59A, pp. 560, "A No. 9944” [MSA T55-59, 3/4/1/42]
BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT
(Equity Papers A, Misc.) 1919, Williams et al. v. Broening et al. Box No. 3161, “A No. 9944” [MSA T53-3764, 3/8/11/86]
Appellate Court Records:
COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) 1919, Williams et al. v. Broening et al. CCM 2, i, pp. 214, October Term, no. 90, MdHR 19, 492 [MSA S412-17, 1/67/6/3]
COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions) 1919,
Williams et al. v. Broening et al. October Term, no. 90, MdHR 707-197 [MSA S393-183, 1/65/14/33]
COURT OF APPEALS (Records and Briefs) Searched but not found; it appears no briefs were filed
Related Case:
BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT
(Equity Papers A) Jones v. Broening, 1919, case no. A9945, box 3161 [MSA T53-3764, 3/8/11/86]
COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions) Jones
v. Broening, 1919, October Term, no. 91, MdHR 707-197 [MSA S393-183, 1/65/14/33]
COURT OF APPEALS (Misc. Papers)
Jones v. Broening and Willimas v. Broening, 1919, October Term, nos. 90-91, MdHR 708-63 [MSA S397-66, 1/65/7/4]
Scanned as msaref 5458-51-3503
CASE
SUMMARY
PROCEDURAL
POSTURE: Appellant opponents challenged a judgment by the
Circuit
Court of Baltimore City (Maryland), which refused to grant an
injunction against appellees, a mayor and city council. The suit
controversy concerned a proposed amendment to the city's charter,
which related to the taxation of realty and personalty in a territory
annexed to the city by 1888 Md. Laws 98 (Act).
OVERVIEW:
The amendment proposed to replace Baltimore City, Md., Charter, art.
1, § 4 with a clause subjecting all territory annexed under the
Act to the same levy, taxation, and assessment as other property in
the city. The opponents alleged that the Charter had never been
validly adopted because it was not published as required by Md.
Const. art. XI-A and that the proposed measure exceeded the amendment
power conferred by Md.
Const. art. XI-A, § 5,
even if the Charter was validly adopted. The held that the
constitutional publishing requirement was no so mandatory as to
subject the Charter to attack long after its adoption based on the
extent to which the newspapers in which it was circulated. The court
found substantial compliance with the publishing requirement and
found that the Charter was submitted to the city's qualified voters.
As to the power to adopt the amendment, however, the court held that
the city's authority was limited by Baltimore City, Md., Charter,
art. 4, § 6, 28-A and -B, which provided that no authority was
given to impose taxes on any property that was then or later became
exempt.
OUTCOME:
The
court reversed the challenged order and remanded the case.
|
