Mayor of Baltimore v. Baltimore & Ohio Rail-road
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from Baltimore County Court. This was an action of assumpsit, brought to January term, 1846, by the appellants against the appellees. The defendants pleaded non-assumpsit. A verdict was rendered for them, when the plaintiffs prosecuted this appeal.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Baltimore County Court. This was an action of assumpsit, brought to January term, 1846, by the appellants against the appellees. The defendants pleaded non-assumpsit. A verdict was rendered for them, when the plaintiffs prosecuted this appeal. At the trial of the cause, the plaintiffs, to support the issue on their part, offered in evidence the acts of the General Assembly of Maryland, and the Ordinances of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, relating to taxation in the State or City of Baltimore ; and also the act of the General Assembly of December session, 1835, ch. 395.…
1Opinion of the CourtDorsey, J.
The conclusive influence on the case before us, which, by the counsel of the appellants, has been attributed to the cases of Gordon vs. The Appeal Tax Court, and Cheston vs. The Appeal Tax Court, in 3 Howard's Reports, 133, &c., is not admitted. As grounds to support the opinion it gave, the Supreme Court say, that a franchise for banking, when bought, “ the price is paid for the use of the privilege whilst it lasts, and any tax upon it would substantially be an addition to the price.” And in the progress of its opinion, it also says that “the franchise is their (meaning the banks) corporate…
2Cited by36 opinions
- Williams v. Mayor of BaltimoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- State v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1878
- Meade Heights, Inc. v. State Tax CommissionCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1996
- Wells v. CommissionersCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1893
- State Tax Commission v. GalesCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1960
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.