
    COURT OF APPEALS,
    JUNE TERM, 1794.
    Johnson et al., Securities of Thomas Williams, against State of Maryland.
    ON a case from chancery, viz. tc The chancellor being authorized by a legislative resolve, to adjust the account of the state of Maryland against the said securities, a question of law occurred, on which he requested and obtained the decision of the judges of the general court; but, on examination of the papers in this cause, remaining in the chancery office, neither the statement of the question by the chancellor, nor the decision of the judges is to be found, and the chancellor cannot recollect precisely his own statement; it is, however, certain, that he intended to procure their opinion how far the said securities were bound for the conduct of the said Williams, and therefore the question either was, or ought to have been,
    1st. Whether or not the securities on a collector’s bond, taken under the act to raise the supplies of the year 1781, passed at October session, 1780, were answerable for the collection of the tax imposed by an act for sinking the quota required by congress, passed at June session, 1780.
    2d. Whether or not the securities in a collector’s bond, taken under the act for raising the supplies of 1782, passed at November session, 1781, were answerable for the collection of the said tax imposed by the said act of June.¡ 1780.
    "A. C. Hanson, Chancellor.”
    
      Pinkney liar the plaintiffs,
    lays down the position, that a security is not bound beyond the letter of his engagement. 3 Wils. 530. 1 Durnf. & East, 287.
    
      Martin, (Attorney-General.)
    It is admitted that the commissioners had powers given them by the acts of assembly, to take the respective bonds in question, and to take them with precisely the condition annexed to ¿hem ; for the respective acts require them to take bonds from the collectors, and prescribe the words of the condition. Vide Oct. sess. 1780, c. 25. s. 28. and Nov. sess. 1781, c. 4. s. 33.
    It is admitted the condition of the bond is sufficiently general to superinduce the liability contended for by the state; but it is said that generality is to be controlled by the respective acts, and by the intention of the legislature.
    I contend that the collector and his securities were by these bonds answerable for the collection of the tax imposed, June session,'!780; that this was the intention of the legislature; that the collectors and their securities perfectly so understood the engagement they entered into, and acted accordingly.
    By the act of June, 1780, c. 8. s. 6. a tax of a dollar in the hundred pounds of assessed property, or specifics equivalent, is imposed for five years; the collection to be completed before the first of November annually, and to be paid. into the treasury annually, before the first day of December. This collection and payment was to be made by the collectors, but no mode designated by that act for their appointment, nor any provision for their giving bond before they entered upon their collection; both which were needless to be done by that act, because the collector was an officer, as well known by our laws as a sheriff, a governor, or any other of our officers. The collector was as -(veil known to be the person appointed from year to year, under prescribed regulations, to collect the public taxes, as the sheriff to be a.person chosen at particular periods by the people of the county, for certain duties, or the governor to be the person elected at certain periods, by the two branches of the legislature; and as the collector, when appointed, teas always required to give bond and security before he could act as collector, it was needless to make any provision in this act, because no collection under this act could take place by the then collectors, as the first collection was to be made after March, 1781, before which time new collectors were to be appointed, and by the laws by which their appointments were to be regulated, the necessity of giving security, as well as the form of the bond, could be enforced and prescribed, as was really done.
    No person can doubt, when the legislature passed the act of June, 1780, they intended there should be collectors to receive and pay in the tax. No person can doubt but it was also intended that such collectors should give bond and security before they made the collection. The legislature had not discovered such punctuality in their collectors as to be disposed to dispense with this requisite.
    But unless by collectors in that act, they meant the collectors of the tax, to be from time to time appointed for the collection of public assessment by the commissioners, there never was, from the time of the passage of that act until this time, any person appointed to collect that tax, or any provision made by the legislature for that purpose j and unless it was intended that the office bond, given by the collector appointed by the commissioners, should extend to secure this collection, there never has been any provision that a bond should be given for that purpose; considerations which leave it unquestionable, that the true construction of the acts of June, 1780, and the subsequent acts, are as the state contends.
    What was the construction put upon those laws, in fact, by the commissioners, by the collectors and by their securities ?
    The persons appointed by the commissioners as collectors of the state tax from year to year, took upon themselves the collection of the tax imposed by June session, 1780. They executed no other than their general office bond, and when the securities, through the death of the collector, or for other causes, took upon themselves the completion of the collection, they collected the tax imposed by^the act of June, 1780, as well as the other taxes. Thus Williams acted, and thus acted Williams’s securities. These facts are notorious.
    The construction given by the state to these acts was, therefore, not only intended by the legislature, but perfectly understood by those who acted under the law.
    But it is said the collector could not possibly tell how much to collect under the law of June, 1780, because the commissioners are not required, by the acts of October, 1780, or November, 1781, to give in to the collector the amount of that tax.
    I answer, I need only observe, that the commissioners were obliged to deliver to the collector an alphabetical list of the persons in each hundred, chargeable for the property therein, and the total amount of the valuation of each person’s property respectively. Vide acts of October, 1780, c. 2S. s. 30. and November, 1781, c. 4. s. 37.
    The collectors must be very ignorant of figures if they could not calculate what each person was to pay on account of the tax imposed by the act of June, 1780, which imposes adollar on its value on each hundred of that valuation.
    I hold it as clear beyond doubt, that by collectors, in the act of June, 1780, are meant the well known officers from time to time appointed according to the laws by the commissioners, for the collecting the public assessment ; and, therefore, that as long as the act of June, 1780, was in force, it became, from year to year, the duty of the persons so appointed to collect the tax by that act imposed.
    
      Williams being thus appointed by the commissioners of the tax, it officially became one of his duties to collect and pay this tax. The securities expressly stipulated for his faithfully executing and performing the several duties required of him as collector of the tax; they, therefore, stipulated for his faithfully collecting and paying the tax in question.
    Recur to the forms of the conditions of the collectors’ bonds before and after June, 1780, and the examination of the different acts are conclusive, viz. February, 1777, c. 21. s. 29. March, 1778, c. 7. s. 27. October, 1778, c. 7. s. 24. and November, 1779, c. 35. s. 36. In all these instances the conditions are in so many words specifically confined to the performance of the duties “ required of him by the act of assembly, entitled an act,” &c.
    The condition of the bonds are directed by the legislature, after June, 1780, in the form as executed by Williams and his securities, “ well and faithfully to execute and perform the several duties” (not imposed by an act entitled an act, &c. but) “ required of him as collector of the tax for Prince George's county, according to law,” in words of generality, because, as collector of the tax for Prince George's county, he had other duties besides those imposed by the acts of October, 1780, and November, 1781. He had duties imposed by other acts, to wit, that of June, 1780. The condition, therefore, is not tied up to the duties imposed by one particular act, but extends in words, as was the intention of the legislature it should in spirit, to secure the faithful performance of all his duties, by whatever act imposed.
    I shall only add, it appears to me so extremely clear that, as the words of the condition extend in expression to the case in question, so it was, and ought to have been, the intention of the legislature that they should extend to it, that I think it is impossible the smallest doubt should really be entertained on the subject, unless by a person extremely in the habit of doubtingon the plainest subjects, or whose interest it is to doubt.
    
      Key,
    for the securities of Williams. The court being in possession of a state of the case, and an argument be-heard on it, I will confine myself to a few observations.
    The act of assembly of June session, 1780, c. 8. imposes a particular tax for a specified object, to continue for five years. Section 6. The valuation of property under this law to be between the 1st of February, and 15th of March, annually. Payments enforced before the 1st of November, collection to be completed, and payment made into the treasury before the 1st of December, by the collectors.
    In this act, no commissioners are appointed, no collect- or designated, no bond required, no process of distress for non-payment given j of course, it only expressed a sense of complying with the requisition of congress; but the law itself was inefficient and inoperative.
    In the same session of June, 1780, c. 13. within a few days of the former law, an act passed for the appointment of collectors, &c. Section 11. inflicts a penalty of 200/. upon sheriffs refusing or neglecting to give security and proceeding on the collection, and empowers the commissioners upon such refusal or neglect, to divide the county into districts, and appoint collectors for each district, and such collectors were to act under 150/. for refusing or neglecting to give bond.
    Let me here observe, that before, and up to the time pf, the passage of this act, the sheriffs were ex officio collectors, and no persons had authority to appoint any other persons as collectors ; of course, when any additional tax was laid, the sheriffs, as collectors, were bound to make the collection and give bond for it; nor was this changed until June, 1780, c. 13. when, on refusal of the sheriff, the commissioners were empowered to divide the county into hundreds, or districts not exceeding the number of hundreds.
    Hence it follows, that the sheriffs were the collectors contemplated by the 6th section of June, 1780, c. 8. for no persons were, or could be, at that time, collectors, except the sheriffs.
    The act of June, 1780, c. 13. is evidently intended to remedy and supply the defects of chap. 8. They are passed at the same session, made pari materia, and, according to a rule of construction, must be taken together as one system. The commissioners named in the act of June, 1780, c. 13. must of necessity mean the commissioners named in the supply act, passed in 1779, for none others were in existence, and as the sheriffs were ex officio collectors, (or more properly it was by law made appendant to the office of sheriff,) they were bound to the collections imposed by subsequent laws, consequently bound to the collection of the tax imposed by June, 1780, c. 8. and under June, 1780, ci 13. the commissioners therein named ought to have called on the sheriff to give security for the fund tax in that session imposed, or in case of refusal, to have named collectors for districts as required by law. This construction is warranted by the expressions of the different laws, and occurs to me the only rational exposition of the act of June, 1780, c. 8. and of June, 1780, c. 13. as forming a system to carry the object of the legislature into effect, and if the commissioners did not require the security of the sheriff, the collector, innocent securities in a subsequent bond, executed under a subsequent law, ought not to be drawn in to cover this their omission, and to be held accountable for a tax which ought to have been collected by other persons.
    Let us examine the act of November, 1781, c. 4. and we find a tax imposed with a view to a particular object, viz. the supplies of the current year, distinct from, and independent of, the former tax, created by, and the object of, the act of June, 1780, c. 8. The commissioners are specially named, with special powers for special purposes j their oaths, their duty, their obligations, arise solely from the act of November, 1781, c. 4. And this in all its provisions has a decided reference to carry it- * J self into effect, and raise the tax for the supplies of the current year, the only object or the act.
    The sheriff is not considered in this act as collect- or, ex officio, of the tax imposed by it, as he is of the tax of June, 1780; but the commissioners are authorized to empower him, or any other person; and in case of refusal of the person first appointed, they are to appoint a collector for the whole county, not separate collectors for each district, as in the acts of June, 1780, c. 8. & 13. so that the mode of collection in cases of refusal was as different in the two acts, as the tax to be collected, or the application of it; but if I am mistaken in these ideas, let me examine the attorney-general’s argument.
    He says, “ the collector was an officer of the government, well known as such, and therefore the collection of the tax of June, 1780, fell within his duty under his appointment of November, 1781, c. 4.” To this I answer, that the collector was a mere creature of annual appointment under the assessment laws, with a view to carry into effect the law which authorized his appointment ; and to say that in virtue of this appointment he derived authority to collect under a former law, is begging the question, and taking that to be a fact or inference of law, which ought to be proved. The act of November, 1781, c. 4. does not recognise the act of June, 1780, in any possible manner, and it is a fair deduction to say, that a person appointed under it, had no interference with taxes not created and imposed by it.
    It is said, by the attorney-general, “ that if the legislature did not intend the collector, under November, 1781, c. 4. to collect the tax of June, 1780, no person has yet been appointed to make the collection of it.” Now to admit this argument in its utmost extent, it only operates to show that they made a law without pointing out the mode of carrying it into effect, which is not unfrequently done, but can never operate as a reason to charge securities under another law, beyond the extent of their engagement. The act of June, 1780, is a dead letter by itself, and this at once is an instance of a law without the means of being carried into execution, unless you resort to constructive liability under a bond executed in pursuance of a subsequent law, having in all its parts a specified object in view, and without any distant allusion to the act of June, 1780: for I aver, that in no part or passage of the act of November, 1781, c. 4. is there any allusion to the act of June, 1780, and it savours too much of technical legal refinement, and metaphysical subtlety, to imply the securities under this act to be liable for the tax of June, 1780.
    But, says the attorney-general, “ the construction of these laws, by the commissioners, the collectors and securities has been under the impression of their liability for the tax of June, 1780.” Suppose it true; does their construction or conduct, constitute the law ? I say not.
    In our case, the commissioners conceived, and the collector acted under, an idea that he and his securities were liable for the 15s. tax, created after the execution of their bond. Now, if their opinion constituted the law, the securities ought to be charged with the 15s. tax, which the chancellor relieved them from. This at once shows the absurdity of drawing an argument from their ideas of, or conduct in, the business. In truth, it can have no influence on the subject, and the case is before the court for an abstract opinion, upon the questions submitted, and your honours will not resort to the ideas of those who were not competent to form a legal opinion on the subject, and who, in one other instance, as well as the present, have most egregiously blundered, to wit, in the idea of liability for the subsequent 15i. tax. Hence I say, the opinion and conduct of the commissioners, the collector and securities, can have no weight in your determination, much less the state’s construction of the act, because if the securities did not find out their non-liability, the state was too much interested to make the disclosure, and this conduct on the part of the state was fully evidenced in persisting to demand and receive the 15s. tax, until the securities were relieved from it, although there never was any pretext or colour of law for demanding or receiving it.
    It is also .said by the attorney-general, “ the collector must be very ignorant of figures if he could not calculate the amount of the tax of June, 1780, on the valuation of property in his hands under the act of 1781.” To this I answer, it was obviously no part of his duty under the act of November, 1781, c. 4. This act directs an alphabetical list (sect. 37.) to be delivered to the collect- or, of the amount of each person’s charge, expressing the sum to be paid by this act. With what view ? Obviously as an authority to what extent he should collect from each person ; and in case of an abuse in the collection, the people could resort to the commissioners to know the amount for which they were respectively liable. Are any provisions of a similar, or of any nature, contained in this act, with respect to carrying into execution that of June, 1780, c. 8. ? and are they in reason or justice more necessary in one case than in another? That the legislature made these provision's in one case and not in the other, obviously results from this, that they did not in the act of 1781 contemplate the tax of June, 1780.
    Again, it is said by the attorney-general, “ that by collectors in the act of June, 1780, is meant a well known annual officer, the collector, and that when Williams afterwards became collector, and gave bond for the performance of the several duties as collector of the tax, the collection of the tax of June, 1780, became one of his duties, and therefore his securities became liable.”
    I say this is a forced, unwarrantable construction, no founded in law, nor justified by the general expression of the words “ several duties,” contained in the bond.
    Let us see. The act of June, 1780, appoints no collector ; this is admitted by all. But then, “when a collector is appointed by a subsequent law,” the state infers that the tax of a former law is included in the expression of ‘ several duties,’ viz. the act of yune, 1780, and November, 1781.” Now to me it is demonstration, that the general expression of “ several duties,” means' those several duties required by that law under which the bond was taken, viz. the collection and payment of the first part of the tax, the collection and payment of the second part of the tax, the collection and payment of the batchelors’ tax, not included in the assessment, &c„ &c. &c. and as the words “ several duties” are gratified by the several duties imposed by the law under which the bond was taken, it appears unreasonable, too refined, and unfair, to travel out of that law in search of duties imposed by another law.
    I am warranted in saying that the legislature had no intention, by the words “ several duties,” in the act of 1781, and in the condition of the present bond, to comprehend a tax imposed by another law, for they always used the same words when there were no other duties hut what arose under the law authorizing the bond.
    In the act of February session, 1777, c. 21. s. 29. the words “ several duties” are used; and there was no ether law to which it could refer, this being the first assessment law. March, 1778, c. 7. s. 27. October, 1778, c. 7. s. 34. and November, 1779, c. 35. s. 36. In all these laws, the words “ several duties” are used as showing that the act of itself, without relation to other laws, consisted of “ several duties.” If, then, the act of itself, in legislative idea, consisted of “ several duties,” and the same expression is used in the present bonds, with what colour of propriety, justice, or sound construction are you to give a different signification to entrap tuiwary securities by reference to another law, when the words of the bond are gratified by the several duties imposed by the law itself; and the legislature has always used the words in the sense I contend for.
    A bond in private life, so worded in general as to create a constructive liability beyond what a security executing it could reasonably infer on its face, and from the authority of the agent taking it, and different from the received sense of the words in it, would be scouted at as deceptions and tricky; and to.give such construction to public laws, to the ruin of individuals, is what no government will or ought to tolerate.
    It is said “ that the change in the condition of the bond, being variant from the former laws, by inserting the words “ several duties,” they must have been intended to cover the tax of 1780.” But I have shown, from every assessment law, that the words “ several duties” are mentioned in the condition of the bond because the law contemplated several duties in itself, and could have no relation to any other law, as in the first assessment law of 1777, c. 21. s. 29. From what motive the change was introduced in wording the condition of the bond cannot be known; but I have shown the words “ several duties” (which form the bulwark of the argument of the attorney-general) do not, in legislative use and meaning, recur to duties out of the act prescribing the bond, but are restricted to the several duties prescribed by the act itself. In the name of common sense, then, let me ask, if there is any solidity or weight in the reasoning of the attorney-general that these words were intended and inserted to cover the tax of June, 1780, as the collector’s duty, when every assessment law, from 1777 to 1781, makes use of the same expressions to recognise the duties of the act itself requiring the bond, and could by no possibility extend to any other law.
    It would violate all acknowledged principles of construction, to give these words a larger extent and mean-rag in this case than the legislature ever intended them to have in any other. And against whom ? Securities, who are favoured in law, and never by implication held responsible. No inference can arise from the penalty of the bond being more than double the amount of all the taxes, because the bond for the act of October, 1780, was executed in February, 1781, and the bond for the act of 1781 was executed in February, 1782, each of them respectively executed before the amount of the taxes of each year could be known, or the assessors could return their lists ; therefore, the commissioners took the bond in a large sum, sufficient to cover the whole collection, be it what it might.
    To me the caséis as clear as possible under the act of 1781, and I do not think the 64th section of the act of 1780 differs the law on that bond, and that the securities are not liable under either bond for the tax of June, 1780, but unquestionably not on the last bond.
   The Court.

(Rumsey, Ch. J. and Jones, J.)

The name of collector seems to be unknown in this state before February, 1777, c. 21. and 22. as appointed by that and subsequent annual laws. Before that time two collectors are mentioned by temporary laws, one of duties and another of the quitrents ; the latter was directed to collect the small land tax imposed under the old constitution, of one shilling per hundred acres. Act of February, 1756, c. 5.

This officer appears to be appointed in annual acts of parliament for raising supplies by a land tax in Great Britain, from one of which, probably, the act in February, 1777, was drawn.

The act of assembly, in imitation of those statutes, appoints one in each county, and his duty is in like manner pointed out. The condition of their bond was “ well and faithfully to execute and perform the several duties required of him by the act of assembly- entitled an act to assess and impose an equal tax on all property within the state, and pay the treasurer such sums, of money as he shall receive by virtue of the same.”

By a supplementary, law made in October, 1777, collectors were to give bond, and sheriffs are appointed collectors, and sheriff or collector mentioned in the different sections throughout the act.

In November, 1779, the sheriff or collector to give bond as above.

In June, 1780, c. 13. the refusal of the sheriff is noted, a fine set upon him, leave to nominate a collector, who is also to be fined on refusal.

From which it appears that the collector was an officer appointed by a special law, for special purposes, and not an officer known and recognised generally by the laws.

In June, 1780, c. 8. the bushel of wheat, 25 lbs. of tobacco, or dollar per 100/. is imposed; the payment to be made and enforced annually, in one or two payments, before the 1st of November, and to be completed and paid by the collectors into the treasury before the 1st of December, and this was to be collected on an assessment to be made between the 1st of February and 15th of March, 1781, to 1785, inclusive. In this law, considered by itself, no commissioners, no assessors, no collectors are appointed, and no method pointed out to carry it into execution.

In October, 1780, c. 25. is an act to raise the supplies for the year 1781; commissioners thereby to appoint sheriffs, or such persons as they think fit, collectors. The condition of their bond is, “ well and faithfully to execute and perform the several duties required of him as collector of the tax for-county, according to law.”

The condition appears here first to be altered and continued in subsequent acts; those on which the questions arise, are drawn agreeable to the above precedent.

The.act of October, 1780, has a relation, in the performing its duties, chiefly to the act creating them, and appoints assessors and collectors. In the 64th section, ¡he valuation of the October act was “ to stand and be in the stead of the valuation or estimate of all the property within this state, directed to be made between the first day of February and fifteenth of March, seventeen hundred and eighty-one, by the act, entitled an act for sinking the quota, required by congress, of this state, of the bills of credit emitted by congress, [June, 1780, c. 8.] and that the rate set and assessed for the year 1781, by the same act, shall be paid and collected on or before the tenth day of October next, upon the valuation of property to be made in pursuance of this act; and.the account thereof shall be settled, and the balance paid into the treasuries by the times, under the penalties, and in the manner as is directed by this act, as to the payment of the second part of the rate imposed by this act.”

Another time is appointed by this act, for the assessment of the dollar tax, and the time of payment; but the account of the collection thereof is to be settled, and the balance paid into the treasuries in the manner as is directed by this act, as to the payment of the second part of the rate imposed by this act; this duty was undoubtedly to be done by the collector.

The sense of the legislature appears, by this clause, to be to carry the act of June, 1780, into execution.

In the act of November, 1781, c. 4. there is no clause like that in October, 1780, c. 25. and in this law, the assessment may be made before, or a month after, the assessment to be made by virtue of the act of June, 1780.

We are of opinion, that the securities are bound, and liable for the collection of the dollar tax imposed in June, 1780, and to be raised in 1781, and not for the collection of that tax in 1782.  