Ryninger v. Keating
Yellott, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. These appeals were argued and submitted at the same time; the legal questions presented for determination in 335 the one case being identical with those involved in the other. The appellants were appointed officers of registration of voters in conformity with the provisions of the Act of 1882, ch. 22; the one for Baltimore City and the other for Anne Arundel County. In addition to the registration of voters on the days set apart for that purpose by the Act of Assembly, they performed other services required by the law, and for the performance of these services-they contend that they are entitled to be paid at the rate of four dollars per diem for the time so occupied.
The amount so claimed by Ryninger is one hundred and twelve dollars ; and the amount claimed by the other appellant is eighty dollars. The validity of these claims being denied, and payment refused, each of the appellants applied to the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County for a writ of mandamus, commanding the Comptroller to issue his warrant upon the Treasurer of the State for the sum of money claimed in each case. The Court below dismissed the petitions, and from the order in each case an appeal has been taken, and the questions involved in controversy have thus been brought into this Court for final determination. There is no controversy in relation to the facts alleged in either petition ; but while the appellee has admitted by his answer in the one case, and by his demurrer in the other, that the appellants were employed during the days, for which payment is claimed, in making and publishing “in hand-hill form, a complete list of all persons registered at said several sittings,” and in performing other duties designated and required by the Act, he contends that the “ days of appointed service,” for which a per diem, of four dollars is allowed, are only the days occupied by the actual sittings of the officers for the registration of the names of persons qualified to exercise the elective franchise.
If is apparent
This is a preview of Ryninger v. Keating. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.