Balto. City v. Cahill

Constable, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This case has beefi. before this Court once before and is reported in 130 Md. 495 . At that time the appeal was from a decree sustaining a demurrer to' the bill. “The purpose of the bill” as stated in the prior’ opinion, “was to enjoin the City Collector of Baltimore City from collecting’ an assessment levied against the appellant’s property by the judges of the Appeal Tax Court of Baltimore, and to enjoin the said Judgps of the Appeal Tax Court from, levying any assessment against the property of the appellant for'paving done upon property of the appellant.” The property spoken of was’a section of what is known as the Falls Highway, and at the time of the institution of this suit the title to which was in the appellant in the prior appeal. The Court below sustained the demurrer, but this Court reversed the decree and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Upon the remand the appellants in this appeal filed an answer, denied all the material allegations of the bill and by the eleventh paragraph of the answer alleged as follows: “Further answering the allegations of said bill, these defendants say: That at the time the paving was laid, and at the time of classifying the plaintiff’s property as subject to the paving tax imposed by Chapter 688, Act of 1912, that none of the plaintiff’s property condemned for use as a public highway had been acquired by the city; but the property had been condemned and the city’s appeal had been heard and determined in the Baltimore City Court. That prior to the pay ⁴⁰¹ ment of the amount awarded to the plaintiff in that appeal, the latter had appealed to the Court of Appeals of Maryland. That the paving had been completed by the city while said appeal was pending. Subsequently the decision was reversed and the case remanded.

Upon a second trial the land was condemned and the amount paid to the plaintiff, who delivered a deed to the city dated the 17th of May, 1917, which deed has been duly recorded among the Land Records of Baltimore City, in Liber C. L. No. 3129, folio 175. So that, the land is now part of the public highways of Baltimore City and subject to the paving tax.” And prayed that a decree should be passed confined wholly to the classification made before the property became a public street of Baltimore. At this hearing the case was heard on bill and answer, by which method the result was., that the plaintiff admitted the truth of all matters stated in the answer, which were susr ceptible of proof by legitimate evidence. McKaig v. James, 66 Md. 583; Miller’s Equity Procedure, sec. 255.

The Court decreed that the classification and listing for taxes, for the year 1916 and subsequent years., of the property mentioned in the bill was null and void; perpetually enjoined the City Collector from collecting any assessment thereto levied growing out of the said classifying and listing for taxes; and further perpetually enjoined the Appeal Tax Court of Baltimore City from hereafter classifying and listing for taxes^ the property mentioned, under the Act of 1912, Chapter 688, Revised Charter, page 525. It is to this last injunction in the decree of which the appellants complain. It is thus seen, that we are now approaching this case from an entirely opposite view than that when it was previously here upon demurrer, when for the purpose of the appeal the allegations of the bill were taken as true, whereas, now they are to. be taken, when denied, as untrue. ⁴⁰² The Act of 1912 provides among other things: “Section 1. That there is hereby levied and imposed upon property in the City