Mayor of Baltimore v. Fine

Pabke, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Chapter 412 of the Acts of 1924, amending' article 56 of the Annotated Code of Maryland, entitled “Licenses,” subtitle “Motor Vehicles,” by adding a new section, reads thus : “141-A. The commissioner of motor vehicles is hereby authorized and directed to refuse to issue or transfer any plate or marker, certificate of registration or title for any motor vehicle unless he is satisfied that all taxes due and in arrears thereon have been paid. This section shall only apply to applications made for motor vehicles owned in the City of Baltimore, and provided that this section shall apply only in the case of taxes becoming due and in arrears in the year 1924 and thereafter. Nothing in this act shall apply to commercial trucks.” The act became effective on June 1st, 1924.

Five months later the appellee, Louis Fine, who was a resident of Baltimore City, proposed to sell his Hudson automobile, which was not a commercial truck. In order for him to consummate the sale, the certificate of title to the automobile had to be assigned by him to the buyer, and the title transferred to the buyer upon the records of the commissioner of motor vehicles. Article 56, section 202, of the Annotated Code of 1924. It was, therefore, a condition precedent to the transfer of the title from the seller to the buyer that the appellee should first satisfy the commissioner of motor vehicles that all taxes becoming due and in arrears in the year 1924 on ³²⁶ said automobile had been paid. ' Moreover, if tbe sale were not made, be could not obtain a license for tbe automobile in 1925, unless the taxes were paid.

Acts of 1924, chapter 412. Code 1924, art. 56, see. 183. 'The appellee bad been a resident of Baltimore City for .at least five years and tbe owner of personal property during tbis period, but be bad not paid any of bis taxes on tbfe personalty since tbe year 1919. All tbe while automobiles formed a part of bis personal property. During May, 1923, be disposed of three commercial trucks, and tbe only motor vehicle be then bad left was tbe Hudson automobile, which he had bought in the year 1921.

Tbe taxes levied in Baltimore Oity for that municipality and for tbe State are collected by tbe collector of taxes for tbe Mayor and City Council of Baltimore. Baltimore City Charter (1915), sec. 58, p. 90. For the purpose of securing satisfactory evidence of the payment of tbe taxes becoming due and in arrears on account of tbe Hudson automobile in tbe year 1924, tbe appellee requested of tbe collector of taxes a separate bill and receipt for tbe city and state taxes for 1924 on tbe automobile alone as determined by its assessed value, and tendered himself ready and willing to pay tbis isolated amount. Tbe collector declined to accept tbe offer or to give a receipt.

He took tbe position that all, and not a part, of tbe taxes due and in arrears on account of all tbe automobiles then and theretofore owned by tbe appellee should be paid. Instead of paying tbe taxes demanded, tbe appellee instituted proceedings against tbe Mayor and City Council of Baltimore and Charles P. Coady, collector of taxes, petitioning that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding them to accept from tbe appellee that portion of tbe taxes due and owing by him for tbe year 1924, with interest and penalties thereto attached, that would be apportioned to him on account of bis ownership of tbe Hudson automobile. From tbe final order of tbe court, directing tbe issuance of the writ as prayed, tbe Mayor and City Council of Baltimore and the city collector have taken tbis appeal. Tbe points presented on tbis appeal involve important’ ³²⁷ practical questions in the administration of revenue laws, and they must he resolved with the realization that chapter 412 of the Acts of 1924 does not affect their operation and enforcement, but simply makes the prepayment of the taxes due and in arrears for 1924 and thereafter on any one of a class of automobiles, owned by residents of Baltimore, a condition precedent to its future operation or change of title.

The act prescribes but the one prerequisite. It is silent as to the owner’s method of paying* the tax and indicates no change in procedure on the part of the officials charged wtih its collection. Inasmuch as the revenue laws are left unaffected by chapter 412, it would seem ain unstrained deduction that the General Assembly had viewed with equanimity the probability that the automobile owner would he compelled to pay all his future overdue taxes in order to he able to satisfy the commissioner of motor vehicles of the payment of the fractional part which was attributable to his automobile. The simple inquiry, therefore, is whether or not the owner of an automobile, which is not a -commercial truck, can compel the collector of taxes to- accept only that part of the municipal and State taxes which axe due and in arrears on all the owner’s personalty for the year 1924, that is asoribable to the assessed value of the automobile, and issue to him a