Maryland case law › Mayor of Baltimore v. Howard

Mayor of Baltimore v. Howard

20 Md. 335 (1863) · Maryland Court of Appeals
Maryland Court of AppealsDisposition: AffirmedGoldborough, J.✓ Good law
HoldingThis case arose from a dispute over the authority of the Board of Police of the City of Baltimore, created by the Act of 1860, ch.

GtOldsborougii, J., delivered the opinion of this Court: After a careful investigation of the proceedings in this cause, we concur in the view taken hy the judge of the Circuit Court, and for the reasons assigned in the opinion delivered by him, the order of the seventh day of February 1862, refusing to grant the injunction prayed for in the complainants’ MU, will be affirmed. The counsel for tho respective parties having agreed upon a statement of facts in reference to the claim of Charles I). Hinks, arising from the check mentioned in the statement: and having requested this Court to express their opinion thereon for tho purpose of avoiding further litigation; we have accordingly considered the same, and are of opinion that Mr. Hinks is entitled to demand payment of the check referred to, from the Farmers and Planters Bank of Baltimore, it being conceded that the Police Board had deposited in that bank sufficient funds to meet it, and that there was no objection to the form of the check, or that it was not drawn in conformity with the regulations of the Police Board in making their disbursements. By the third section of the ‘Jth ch. of the Act of 1860, a Board of Police, to be called “The Board of Police of the City of Baltimore,” was constituted, to consist of four per 356 sons; and their salaries were prescribed by the same section.

By the fourth section, the appellees were appointed the first commissioners. By the 15th section, authority was given to the Police Board to estimate what sums of money would be necessary for each fiscal year to enable them to discharge the duties imposed on them; and the Mayor and City Council, upon being certified of the estimated. amount, were required to raise the same by taxation, to be denominated the Police Tax. This fund, when .received by the Police Board, was to be held, appropriated and disbursed by them in their discretion, for the jmrpose of discharging the duties by law imposed on them. As a board of State officers, possessing the power amongst other powers to make disbursements, they

This is a preview of Mayor of Baltimore v. Howard. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.