MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE VS. LOUIS APPLEFELD, ET AL.

BALTIMORE CITY COURT. Filed November 1, 1917. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE VS. LOUIS APPLEFELD, ET AL. Goo. Arnold Frick for Mayor and City Council. Jacob J. II. Mitniolc, II. E. Lee Hall, J. heroy Hopkins, Julian 8. Jones. Edwin T. Dickerson. Henry M. Siegel. Louis Hollander, Machen é Williams, Randolph Barton, Jr., and Jos. Addison for various defendants. [MAJORITY — BOXD, J.—] BOXD, J.— Conformably to the opinion which was filed in the case of Mayor and City Council vs. Charles W. Simpson et al., I still hold that the City is proceeding properly in condemnation under the name of the Mayor and City Council in conformity with sub-section 4 of Section 6 of the Charter, entirely irrespective of the specific provision in the Act of 1908, Chapter 188. Accordingly I conclude that the defeat of the Civic Center Loan does not, as wa,s argued, destroy all legal power of the City to proceed with the development of the area as a square or open parked space, if it is able to do so from the general tax levy or otherwise. I also rule against the contention that the proceeding is wrong because it unites all interests in the property for one trial before one jury. The statute Is to be construed, I think, as providing for a single proceeding for each physical division or lot, in which proceedings all interests in the lot are to tie valued. If there is a ground rent underlying more than one lot then there must be a valuation of the portion under each, just as there must he an apportionment when only a portion of the area subject to the rent is taken for an improvement, as is frequently the case. The demurrer is overruled.