Jay v. Co. Commr's. Harford

6 Citing cases

  1. Carroll Co. v. Landmark Commun. News

    293 Md. 595 (Md. 1982)   Cited 4 times

    Clark v. Harford Agricultural Breeders' Asso., 118 Md. 608 [, 617, 85 A. 503 (1912)].' Jay v. Co. Comm'rs Harford, 120 Md. 49, 52, 87 A. 521 (1913)." 274 Md. at 120-21.

  2. Harford County v. Tatar, L., C. Wood, Inc.

    363 A.2d 501 (Md. 1976)

    Being cognizant of the pressing need for expanded court facilities in Harford County, we readily acceded to the petition of the architect for grant of the writ of certiorari prior to consideration of the case in the Court of Special Appeals. In County Council v. Supervisor, 274 Md. 116, 332 A.2d 897 (1975), we were concerned with the right of appeal to the Maryland Tax Court granted by Code (1957, 1969 Repl. Vol.) Art. 81, § 256 (a) to "the county commissioners of any county where an appeal tax court has been duly created" and whether the County Council of Montgomery County had this right of appeal. Coincidentally, we quoted Jay v. Co. Commr's. Harford, 120 Md. 49, 52, 87 A. 521 (1913), that "[u]nder our law County Commissioners are corporations, they act not as individuals but in their corporate entity," citing Clark v. Harford Agri. Breed. Asso., 118 Md. 608, 617, 85 A. 503 (1912), yet another case originating from Harford County. It held the commission there under consideration "must act by a majority vote, and like other boards, or corporations, the individual members thereof exercise no powers except by and through a majority of the body itself." We concluded at p. 123 of 274 Md. "that it is the corporate entity of Montgomery County, Maryland, so known in its charter, which is vested with the right of appeal under Art. 81, § 256 (a) in lieu of the prior corporate entity, the County Commissioners of Montgomery County," and that "[s]ince the County Council is not the corporate entity, an appeal may not be maintained in its name.

  3. County Council v. Supervisor

    274 Md. 116 (Md. 1975)   Cited 30 times
    In County Council v. Supervisor, 274 Md. 116, 117, 332 A.2d 897, 898 (1975), this Court held that "the County Council of Montgomery County is not synonymous with the term `county commissioners'."

    Clark v. Harford Agricultural Breeders' Asso., 118 Md. 608 [, 617, 85 A. 503 (1912)]." Jay v. Co. Comm'rs. Harford, 120 Md. 49, 52, 87 A. 521 (1913). In Clark the observation was made relative to the commission there under consideration that it "must act by a majority vote, and like other boards, or corporations, the individual members thereof exercise no powers except by and through a majority of the body itself."

  4. Co. Commrs. Harford Co. v. Jay

    89 A. 715 (Md. 1914)   Cited 7 times

    CONSTABLE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This case was, in part, before this Court once before, in the case of Jay v. County Commissioners of Harford County and P., B. W.R.R. Co., 120 Md. 49, in which the appellee in the present case was the appellant in that case, endeavoring to have the appellees restrained from closing a public road. The remedy was denied because by Article 25, § 12, of the Code (1912) the power is expressly given to the County Commissioners to open and close public roads, with the right to appeal from their action to the Circuit Court, conferred by Article 5, § 84, Code (1912), and because the bill of complaint could not be sustained upon the ground of the lack of good faith, or fraud or conspiracy upon the part of the County Commissioners, there being presented no question of a way of necessity.

  5. Anne Arundel County v. Muir

    149 Md. App. 617 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2003)   Cited 8 times

    In Maryland, in a non-chartered county, the county commissioners are held to be a municipal corporation, under Md. Code (2001 Repl. Vol.), article 25, § 1. See Neuenschwander v. Wash. Sub. San. Comm'n., 187 Md. 67, 74-75, 48 A.2d 593 (1946); Jay v. County Comm'rs, 120 Md. 49, 52, 87 A. 521 (1913); Gregg Neck Yacht Club v. Co. Comm'rs of Kent County, 137 Md. App. 732, 774, 769 A.2d 982 (2001). Likewise, under article 25A, § 4, in chartered counties, "Article 25 shall continue to be operative."

  6. 82 Op. Att'y Gen. 15

    82 Op. Att'y Gen. 15 (Ops.Md.Atty.Gen. 1997)

    " The corporate status of the county commissioners is confirmed by the case law. See Neuenschwander v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Comm'n, 187 Md. 67, 48 A.2d 593 (1946); Jay v. County Commissioners, 120 Md. 49, 87 A. 521 (1913). Therefore, the attorney for a county represents the corporate entity.