Mayor of Baltimore v. Harris

²²⁸ Briscoe, J., delivered the opinion of the Oourt. The bill in this case was filed on the 3rd day of December. 1908, in the Circuit Oourt of Baltimore City by the plaintiffs, owners of certain real and leasehold property assessed in their names on the tax books of Baltimore City, for an injunction against the defendants, the Mayor and City Coun- . oil of Baltimore, and Frank Brown, its collector, restraining and enjoining them from collecting for taxes for municipal purposes for the year 1908 any other or greater sum than the rate of sixty cents on the one hundred dollars of the assessed value of the property. The prayer of the bill was granted by the Oourt below and the defendants have appealed. It appears from the record that the property is situate in that part of Baltimore City known as the annex, and' under the provisions of the Act of 1888, Oh. 98, as amended by the Act of 1902, that all the properties had been classified for the years, 1903, 1904, 1905, 1906 and 1907, at the suburban rate of sixty cents on the hundred dollars of the assessed value for city purposes, but for the year 1908, it was classified at the full city rate of two dollars on the one hundred dollars of the assessed value.

It further appears from an agreed statement of facts filed in the case that all of said property is situated in an area of ground bounded by Linden avenue, Ducatel street, Bolton avenue (now called Brookfield avenue) and Whitelock street as therein alleged; that the area bounded by these streets and avenues contains 200,660 superficial square feet; that Linden avenue and Ducatel street have been opened, graded, curbed and paved for several years; that Whitelock street, was opened, graded, paved and curbed in July, 1907; that Bolton avevnue (now Broofield avenue) from Ducatel to Whitelock street is a piivate street, paved with cobble stones and curbed. And it also appears from the plat filed in the case that a part of the area of ground is improved and part unimproved, and it is admitted that the property is situate in a block of ²²⁹ ground containing 200,660 superficial square feet, the same being 660 superficial square feet in excess of the number of superficial square feet fixed and prescribed by the Act of 1902, Chapter 130, to subject the property in this block to be taxed at the full city rate. The single question in the case is whether the block of ground here in dispute has reached the stage of development prescribed by the statute to be brought within the class of property to be taxed at the full city rate, and the answer to • this question, we think, will be found in the Acts of 1888 and 1902, supra, and in the construction and' interpretation of those Acts by recent decisions of this Court. In Sams v. Fisher, 106 Md. 167 , it is said: “The Legislature has defined the class of annex property which shall be liable to the full city rate, and when it reaches the standard of development required by the statute it becomes the dirty of the Appeal Tax Court to so list, classify or adjust the property upon the tax books in order that it may be liable to the proper tax.

In other words, the Legislature has said that the property in the Annex should be exempt from the payment of taxes at the full city rate for a definite period, but' after the year 1900, and when it has sustained a certain stage of development, it should be taxed at the full city rate. When therefore property in the annex reaches the prescribed development, it falls within the class of property the Legislature clearly meant should pay the city rate.” The Act of 1902, Chapter 130, declares what shall be considered “landed property,” within sec. 19, Chapter 98, of the Acts of 3888,