Shannahan v. Maulsby
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Harford County. (Harlah, J.) The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
1Opinion of the CourtStockbridge, J.
Chapter 128 of the Aets of 1912 was passed for the purpose, of simplifying and facilitating, the collection of taxes in Harford County. It repealed all antecedent general or local laws inconsistent with the provisions contained in the Act.
Sections 262L and 262M contained provisions directing the method Of procedure for the sale of property for unpaid taxes; provided that the county treasurer should, thirty days after such sale, make report to the Circuit Court for Harford County, which Court was charged with the duty of examining the proceedings, hearing objections, if any, made to the sale;…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- New York Mining Co. v. Midland Mining Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1904
- Baltimore & Havre-de-Grace Turnpike Co. v. Northern Central Railway Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1860
- Lammott v. MaulsbyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1855
- Margraff v. Cunningham's HeirsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1882
- Savage Manufacturing Co. v. OwingsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1846
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Simpler v. State, Use of BoydCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1960
- Free v. GreeneCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1938
- Ruth v. DurendoCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1934