Maryland case law › Wyse v. Yellott

Wyse v. Yellott

119 Md. 463 (1913) · Court of Appeals of Maryland
Court of Appeals of MarylandDisposition: ReversedBurke, J.✓ Good law
HoldingChapter 345 of the Acts of 1912 created the Good Roads Commission of Baltimore County, appointed three commissioners, and empowered them to construct a system of improved public roads and bridges.

464 Burke, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Chapter 345 of the Acts of 1912 created a commission known as the Good Roads Commission of Baltimore County, and charged it with the duty of construction, a system of improved public roads and bridges in that county. It appointed James Rittenhouse, George "W. Yellott and Asa B. Gardiner, Jr., as commissioners, and declared that they and their successors should constitute said commission. These gentlemen qualified as prescribed by the Act, and entered upon the discharge of their duties.

The Act conferred upon the commission large powers. It was authorized to contract with any person or corporation in furtherance of the duties and objects of the Act; to buy machinery and supplies in connection with the work authorized to be done, and to employ attorneys, clerks, stenographers, workmen, etc. Said commission might sue and be sued in all matters pertaining to the highways and bridges over which it was given control; but any judgment or decree rendered against it for negligence or breach of duty imposed by the Act, or for the breach on its part of any contract entered into by it, was required to be paid by the County Commissioners of Baltimore County. The salary of each commissioner was fixed at two thousand dollars per annum, and their salaries, as well as those of its counsel, secretary and other office assistants, together with all its office expenses, were directed to be paid by the County Commissioners out of the general road and bridge fund of the county. The County Commissioners were directed .to issue bonds to the amount of one million five hundred thousand dollars, which, when issued, were declared to be a lien upon the assessable property of the county, the proceeds realized from the sale of the bonds were to be used in the completion of the road and bridge work provided for by the act.

On April 18th, 1912, the

This is a preview of Wyse v. Yellott. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.