Wolff v. Mayor of Baltimore ex rel. Hax

Bowie, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This case was submitted to the Court below for determination without the aid of a jury upon a statement of facts, including all the evidence appearing in the record transmitted from the Court below to the Court of Appeals in the case of Mary L. Forrest vs. The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, for the use of Christian Hax, as a part of said statement. This, like the case referred to, is an action of assumpsit by the appellee against the appellant to recover the amount of certain assessments made by the legal plaintiff below, as a paving tax on certain lots in the city of Baltimore, levied pursuant to the ordinances of said City made in virtue of the charter and Acts of Assembly authorizing the same. The right and power of the appellee to impose the tax and recover the same by action of assumpsit against the person owning the property when the assessment was made, were thoroughly examined and deliberately determined in the case referred to. ⁴⁴⁸ The only distinguishing feature in this case is the manner and time of the transfer of the title in the premises assessed to the appellant.

The application to have the paving done, addressed to the Oitv Commissioner, was signed hy Bartz, as the proprietor, and in the assessment or warrant made by the commissioner the amount due for paving in front of said lot was charged to Bartz as proprietor. The petition was received on the 12th of August, 1870, by the City Commissioner. The warrant for the collection of the taxes was issued on the'11th of October, 1871; the appellant acquired his right and title to the property on the 20th of January, 1871, intermediate between the filing of the petition and the issuing of the warrant In the case of Dashiell vs. The Mayor, &c., 45 Md., 615 , the tax was erroneously assessed to Mrs. Dashiell, a former proprietor, instead of the defendant, who at the time the paving proceedings were commenced, as well as when