Cahill v. Appeal Tax Court

Constable, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from an order or decree sustaining a demurrer to the bill of complaint of the appellant and dismissing the bill. ' The purpose of the bill 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 City, and to enjoin the said Judges of the Appeal Tax Court from levying any assessment against the property of the appellant for paving done on property of the appellant. It is alleged in the bill that the appellant is now, and was at the time of the occurrences set forth in the1 bill, the owner of property located on the east side of Jackson street, and that the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, without any warrant of law, and before it had acquired title to the property belonging ten the appellant, and without his consent, proceeded to project a street over1 the appellant’s property and caused the said street to be paved with an improved pavement; and that the Appeal Tax Court, after notice given and hearing had, levied an assessment for the said paving against the property of the appellant. It was further alleged that after the hearing before the Tax Court, the appellant was notified by one of the Judges of said Court, that the property would not be assessed for the paving theretofore done for the year 1916, or until such time as the Mayor and City Council had obtained title to the property upon which the paving was laid.

That, relying upon such statement, the appellant had ⁴⁹⁷ no knowledge that the assessment had been made until he received a, bill from the City Collector, and at that time, more than thirty days had elapsed since the assessment had been made, and that, therefore, he had lost any right of appeal he might have had. The only contention raised by the appellees in support, of their demurrer is, that the Baltimore City Court had sole jurisdiction, on appeal, to hear and decide the questions raised in this bill. Their contention is that Section 170 of the Baltimore City Charter, as amended by Chapter 167 of the Acts of 1908, gives a clear legal 'remedy and the right to resort to equity is therefore taken away; and rely upon the case of Wannenweich v. Baltimore, 115 Md. 446 . Wo are unable to give the scope to this case sought by the appellees.

It was held under the facts of that ease that there could he no resort to a. Court of Equity because of a want of due notice of the proceedings, since the amended,