Maryland case law › County Commissioners v. Rouse

County Commissioners v. Rouse

141 Md. 549 (1922) · Court of Appeals of Maryland
Court of Appeals of MarylandDisposition: AffirmedBriscoe, J.✓ Good law
HoldingThe County Commissioners of Harford County refused to approve the bonds tendered by the elected treasurer of Harford County, who had been elected in 1921 under the local law of Harford County (chapter 680 of the Acts of 1916, section 463).

550 Bkiscoe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an application for a writ of mandamus by the petitioner against the respondent, the County Commissioners of Harford County, to require the latter to approve the bonds of the petitioner as treasurer of Harford County, under the conditions required by section 463 of chapter 680 of the Acts of 1916. The petitioner was elected treasurer of Harford County in the year 1921, under the provision of the local law of Harford County, which provided that the treasurer of Harford county shall be the collector of all state and county taxes, for the county, however levied, and shall receive all monies which may be due the county from any source whatever, and his receipt alone shall be a valid acquittance for money due Harford County, and shall pay all claims ag’ainst the county, when certified to him by the County Commissioners. By section 463 of the same act, it is provided that, before qualifying and entering upon the discharge of his duties, the treasurer shall execute a bond to the State of Maryland in a penalty of twenty-five thousand dollars, with the condition prescribed by the general laws of the State for the bonds of collectors of State taxes; and also a bond to the State of Maryland for the penalty of twenty-five thousand dollars, conditioned for the faithful performance of his duties as treasurer of Harford County; that said bond shall be approved by the County Commissioners and new bonds shall be given for each year of the term.

The petition alleges that the treasurer tendered the bonds as required by law, each in the penal sum of twenty-five thousand dollars, with sufficient surety, to the County Commissioners on the first day of May, 1922, as required by law; for approval by them, but they refused to approve the bonds tendered by him, because the county bond was not in the penal sum required by the Act of 1920, chapter 257, and also refused to approve the second of the bonds, on the ground that, under the Act of 1920, the County Commissioners were 551 not authorized to approve the bonds of the treasurer to he given for the collection of State taxes. The objection of the County Commissioners of Harford County to the approval of the bonds, as presented by the county treasurer, was based upon the provisions of section 34 of article 81 of the Code, as repealed and re-enacted by chapter 257 of the Acts of 1920. This section provides that every collector of county taxes, before he acts as such, shall give bond to the State of Maryland in a penalty of double the amount of such taxes to be collected by him, with, good and sufficient sureties to be approved by the County Commissioners; with the condition that if the above bound---shall well and faithfully execute his office, and shall account for and pay to the County Commissioners, or their order, the several amounts of money which he shall receive for the county, or he answerable for by law at such time as the law shall direct, then the said obligation to be void, otherwise to be and remain in full force and virtue in law; and every collector of state taxes appointed by the County Commissioners shall also give a separate bond to the State of Maryland in a penalty double the amount of the tax to be collected by him, with good and sufficient securities to be approved by the Governor, with the condition that if the above bound-shall well and faithfully execute his office and shall account for to the Comptroller and pay to the Treasurer of the State the several sums of money which he shall receive for the State or be answerable for by law, at such times as the law shall direct, then the said obligation to be void, otherwise to remain in full force and effect; provided that whenever the surety on the bond of any such collector of county or state taxes is a

This is a preview of County Commissioners v. Rouse. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.