GREENWAY CONST. CO. v. TAX COMM., 222 Md. 573 (1960)

161 A.2d 692

GREENWAY CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. v. STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MARYLAND ET AL.

[No. 62, September Term, 1959.]Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Decided June 13, 1960.

MOOTNESS — Instant Case Held Moot As Result Of Decision In Companion Case. As a result of the decision in a companion case State Tax Comm. v. Gales, 222 Md. 543, holding that the Farm Assessment Act, Code (1957), Art. 81, § 19(b), is unconstitutional, the instant case, concerning the applicability of that Act to appellant’s property, was held to be moot. pp. 573-574

T.G.B.

Decided June 13, 1960.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Howard County (MACGILL, J.).

Petition of appeal by Greenway Construction Co., Inc., from a decision of the State Tax Commission of Maryland. From an order affirming the Commission’s decision, the petitioner appealed.

Appeal dismissed, with costs.

Submitted to BRUNE, C.J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.

Submitted on brief by Charles E. Hogg for the appellant.

Submitted on brief by C. Ferdinand Sybert, Attorney General,
and John Martin Jones, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the appellees.

PER CURIAM.

In this case the appellant, Greenway Construction Co., Inc., seeks the reversal of an order of the Circuit Court for Howard County which affirmed a decision of the State Tax Commission adverse to the appellant. The appellant claimed to be entitled to the benefit of the assessment of its property at a reduced rate under Code (1957), Article 81, § 19(b).

Page 574

This case is a companion to case No. 61, State Tax Comm. v. Gales, 222 Md. 543, 161 A.2d 676. In that case we have held that Sec. 19(b) is unconstitutional. Since the special assessment of land used for agricultural purposes could, therefore, not be validly made, the present case has become moot and the appeal should accordingly be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed, with costs.

Page 575

OPINIONS IN APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER THE POST CONVICTION PROCEDURE ACT

Page 576


[EDITORS’ NOTE: THIS PAGE IS BLANK.]

Page 577

jdjungle

Share
Published by
jdjungle
Tags: 161 A.2d 692

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,…

1 month 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