Isaac Hamburger & Sons v. Mayor of Baltimore

Boyd, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellants, as owners of the premises at the northwest corner of Baltimore and Hanover streets, in the city of Baltimore, filed a petition in the Baltimore City Court praying that the assessment of the improvements, made by the Appeal Tax Court for the year 1907, be rescinded. The petitioners allege that on November 22nd, 1906, the Appeal Tax Court assessed these improvements for the year 1907 at $ 180,000 and that said assessment was illegal for the reason that the improve- ⁴⁸¹ merits were not completed on October ist, 1906, in many important respects and especially as to the plastering and inside •wood-work. They relied on Ordinance No. 170, passed in 1899, by which “The Appeal Tax Court is authorized and directed to have assessed, for taxable purposes, all new improvements finished on or before the first day of October of every year; the said improvements to be construed as finished, when plastering and inside wood-work are completed.” Testimony was taken and after a hearing in the lower Court, an order was, passed, as follows: “The above entitled cause coming on to be heard, and testimony having been given upon behalf of each of the parties, and the cause having been submitted by counsel for the appellant and for the city, and it appearing to the Court that the property in question as shown by the evidence was so far completed on the first day of October, 1906, as to be liable to assessment, and was legally assessed for taxation in Baltimore City for the year 1907, but that the amount of such assessment was erroneous, it is thereupon, Ordered by the Baltimore City Court this 15th day of April, 1907, that the assessment on the improvements upon the lot mentioned in the petition in this case be and the same is hereby reduced from the sum.of $180,000, to the sum of $150,000.” The only exception in the record is thus stated: “To the passing of which order the petitioners excepted, and prayed the Court to sign and seal this bill of exceptions, which is accordingly done,” etc. The appellee made a motion to dismiss the appeal and assigned as reasons therefor: “(1) Because the case involves nothing more than a question of fact, and the Court of Appeals will not review the Baltimore City Court’s finding upon a question of fact, and (2) even if the appeal did involve a question which the Court of Appeals could pass upon still such question could not be raised by an exception taken only to the order passed by the lower Court.” We held in Baltimore City v. Bonaparte, 93 Md. 156 , that it was not the design of sec. 170 of the City Charter (which gives the right of appeal from the Appeal Tax Court to the Baltimore City Court and from the latter to this Court) to re ⁴⁸² quire us to review the findings of fact made by the lower Court, as to the correctness of the assessment.

In that case the Appeal Tax Court revalued certain property owned by Mr. Bonaparte, from which revaluation he took an appeal to the Baltimore City Court which reduced the assessment, and from that action the city appealed to this Court and on motion its appeal was dismissed. There was undoubtedly a question of fact in this case to be determined by the lower Court, which this Court is not authorized to review — that is to say, whether the property was so far completed on the first day of October, 1906, as to be liable to assessment, but there was also a question of law involved, namely, whether under the ordinance referred to these improvements could be assessed for the year 1907, if the plastering and inside woodwork were substantially, but not enlirely completed. The difficulty is that the order appealed from does not specifically pass on the latter question, but simply reduces the assessment from- $180,000 to $150,000. It is true that in the recital it is said “it appearing to the Court that the property in question as shown by the evidence was so far completed on the first day of October, 1906, as to be liable to assessment, and was legally assessed for taxation,” etc., but that would require this Court to review that