COMMISSIONERS OF CAMBRIDGE v. DIAMOND STATE TEL. CO., 100 Md. 693 (1904)

58 A. 1102

THE COMMISSIONERS OF CAMBRIDGE vs. THE DIAMOND STATE TELEPHONE CO.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.
1904

Authority of Municipality to Impose License Fees.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dorchester County Affirmed.

The Commissioners of Cambridge, a municipal corporation, sued the Diamond State Telephone Company in the Circuit Court for Dorchester County, in assumpsit for money claimed to be due for unpaid license fees charged on telephone poles. The defendant demurred to the declaration and, the demurrer having been sustained, the plaintiff refused to plead further but permitted a final judgment to be entered in favor of the defendant from which it took this appeal.

The issue presented in this case is identical with that arising in the case of the same Commissioners against the Cambridge Water Company which appears as No. 21 on the present docket of this Court. We held by our opinion filed in that case, 99 Md. 501, that the judgment in favor of the defendant must be affirmed for want of power in the Commissioners of Cambridgs to exact from the defendant the payment of an annual license fee or tax upon its water plugs and stated the reasons for our conclusions in the opinion.

As neither telephone nor water companies are included among the corporations from which the charter of Cambridge authorizes that municipality to require the taking out of a license we will affirm the judgment appealed from in this case for the reasons mentioned in our opinion in the Water Company’s case without repeating them here.

Judgment affirmed with costs.

Opinion by SCHMUCKER, J., filed June 9th, 1904.

Page 694

jdjungle

Share
Published by
jdjungle
Tags: 58 A. 1102

Recent Posts

NOTTINGHAM v. STATE, 135 A.3d 541 (2016)

135 A.3d 541 (2016)227 Md.App. 592 George Doran NOTTINGHAM v. STATE of Maryland. No. 1602,…

4 weeks ago

STATE v. SAYLES, 244 A.3d 1139 (Md. App. 2021)

244 A.3d 1139 (2021)472 Md. 207 STATE of Maryland v. Karon SAYLES. State of Maryland…

2 years ago

MILBURN v. STATE, 1 Md. 1 (1851)

Alexander Milburn and his Securities, vs. The State of Maryland. Dec. 1851 · Court of Appeals of…

3 years ago

HANDY v. COLLINS, 60 Md. 229 (1883)

John H. Handy vs. Frances C. Collins, Executrix of William H. Collins June 19, 1883 · Court…

3 years ago

CLOUGH v. MAYOR & COUNCIL OF HURLOCK, 445 A.3d 554 (2015)

127 A.3d 554 (2015)445 Md. 364 Kathleen CLOUGH v. MAYOR & COUNCIL OF HURLOCK. No.…

5 years ago

STOP SLOTS MD 2008 v. STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, 34 A.3d 1164 (2012)

34 A.3d 1164 (2012)424 Md. 163 STOP SLOTS MD 2008, et al. v. STATE BOARD…

7 years ago