County Commissioners v. Hunter

Patttson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appeal in this case is from three orders overruling exceptions to the ratification of three tax sales made by Thomas O. Hunter, “Treasurer of Baltimore County and Collector of State and County Taxes for said county.” The exceptions were to the effect that the sales were void and passed no title to the purchaser, the County Commissioners of Baltimore'County, because: (1) The tax bills were not made out and placed in the hands of the constable or deputy sheriff, and the levy and sales thereafter were not made within the time limited by the local statute of said county; and (2) Thomas O. Hunter, who on the 5th day of March, 1921, was appointed to fill out the unexpired term of FT. Bosley M$rryman, Treasurer, whose death occurred in February, 1921, had no authority to continue and complete the proceedings begun by his predecessor for the collection of said taxes. The local statute (section 147 of Offutt’s Code) provides that the “treasurer shall during the month of March succeeding each levy, make out all tax bills, which have not been paid, in duplicate form, and place the same in the hands of the several constables or deputy sheriffs, and each bill so made out shall contain a notice that if the same be not paid on or before the first day of June next after the date of said bill, the property upon which such taxes may be owing will be levied upon and sold to enforce payment thereof; and the bills so made out shall be placed in the hands of the ¹³⁵ said constables or deputy sheriffs on or before the first [Monday in April after the date thereof, and one copy of each hill shall he delivered to the person or corporation against whom it is made ont, or in the event of failure to find such person in the district, shall he left with the agent of such person, or conspicuously posted on the property assessed, within thirty days after the receipt of same.” Section 148 provides that “if the taxes levied shall not he paid on or before the 1st day of June in the year succeeding that on which they were levied, the treasurer shall, within six months from the said 1st day of June, proceed to enforce payment, of the same by a levy upon the real or personal property of the party neglecting to pay; provided, the notice prescribed in the preceding section shall have been given * * *.

Whenever any levy may he made, notice thereof * * * shall he delivered to the owner if he he in possession of the property, or be conspicuously posted on the premises, together with notice that if the said bill for taxes, interest and costs be not paid within thirty days, the property levied upon will he sold at public sale, and the said treasurer is authorized to expose any property so levied upon at public sale at the expiration of thirty days.” Section 149 provides “When any real estate shall be sold under the provisions in the preceding section the sale * * * shall he reported to the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, upon which report there shall he a brief order nisi as in cases of judicial sales by trustees, and if the court shall find that the provisions of said section shall have been complied with, the sale shall be ratified.” The parcel of land named and described in each of the proceedings appearing in the record was sold under a levy made by A. Bosley Merrvman on the 25th day of September. 1919, for state and county taxes for the year 1918. In the report of sale it is said, in respect to each of the parcels of land mentioned, that A. Bosley ATerryman, Treas ¹³⁶ urer of Baltimore County and Collector of state and county taxes for said county, during the month of March, 1918, pursuant and in obedience to the power and authority vested in him by the said public local law, did make out, in the manner and form required by it, a hill for the taxes due on each of said properties, and did place the same in the hands of the constable of the Third Election District of Baltimore County, though said properties were at the time within the limits of Baltimore City, to which they had' been added by the Acts of 1918, chapter 82, and each of said bills contained the notice that if the said taxes were not paid on or before the 1st day of June, 1919, the property upon which said taxes were owing would be sold to enforce payment of the same; and the constable in whose hands the bills were placed; after failing to find the owners of said properties, conspicuously posted a copy of each, of said hills and notices upon each of the properties mentioned, and made his return as required by law. The taxes aforesaid not having been paid on the 1st day of June, in the year above mentioned, N. Bosley Merryman, Treasurer and Collector, levied upon said properties or at least a portion of each of them, the sale of the whole not being required for the payment of the taxes due thereon, and ' at the same time the properties levied upon were appraised. It does not appear that anything further was done by Mr. Merryman as treasurer and collector towards the forced collection of said taxes, but, upon the induction in office of Mr. Hunter, he proceeded with the enforcement of the payment of them by continuing the proceedings begun by Mr. Merry-man, his predecessor, and after advertising each of the properties previously levied upon by Mr. Merryman, or so much thereof as was required for the purpose of the sale, sold the same at public auction to the appellant, the Commissioners of Baltimore County.

The sales to the purchasers were accordingly reported and the usual nisi order placed thereon, hut the Commissioners of Baltimore County, apprehending they could not receive a ¹³⁷ good title to said lands and properties under the sales to them, because of the reasons which we have stated, filed exceptions to the sales so made, and upon the overruling of their exceptions and the passage of the order ratifying the sales, they have appealed therefrom to this Court. The law is now well settled that, in order to render a sale for taxes valid, the essential requirements of the statute must he substantially complied with. Taylor v. Forrest, 96 Md. 531 . But have not the essential requirements -been substantially complied with in this ease ?

It is disclosed by the report that the levy made by Mr. Merryman on the 25th day of September, 1919, was made within the time stated in the statute, though the sale was not made for nearly two years thereafter. The statute, in respect to the time when the sale is to be made in such cases, provides that when the levy is made and notice thereof with copy of the hill for the taxes due, with interest and costs, is delivered to the owner or posted upon the premises, with the further notice that if said taxes, interest and costs he not paid within thirty days, the treasurer at such time is authorized to expose the property at public sale after complying with the provisions of the statute in relation thereto. In State v. Baltimore County, 29 Md. 522 , the act there construed provided that the Commissioners of Baltimore County, within twenty days after the passage of the act, should order an election for five supervisors of roads and bridges. The County Commissioners failed to order the election within the time named, and an application was made to obtain a writ of mandamus directed to the County Commissioners of Baltimore County, directing and commanding them to take the necessary steps to give effect to and put in force said act.

The Commissioners answered, stating that- the time in which they were required to act had elapsed before the application was made for the writ of mandamus, and, therefore, the iaw had become inoperative. ¹³⁸ In reply to this contention the Court said, speaking through Judge Alve/st: “To this proposition of the appellees we cannot assent. That it should be in the power and election of subordinate ministerial or executive officers, by refusing to obey the law, to defeat and nullify it, is a proposition too startling to be favorably entertained in a court of justice. And to prevent such a result being effected, where the duty prescribed is of a public nature, and intended for the public benefit, and is directed to be performed within a specified time, courts, have adopted as a general rule in the construction of statutes, that they are, in respect to the time, to be regarded as directory merely, unless, from the nature of the act to be performed, or the language employed in the statute, it plainly appears that the designation of time was intended as a limitation of power of the officer.” The object of the statute before us is to enforce the payment of taxes by sale of the property of delinquent owners,, and the statute sets out in detail the procedure to be followed by the collector in such cases, consisting of those