clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Session Laws, 1933 Session
Volume 421, Page 1363   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

ALBERT C. RITCHIE, GOVERNOR. 1363

The Motor Vehicle Commissioner advises me that the task
of ascertaining whether applicants under this provision are
really residents of Westminster or Easton would involve so
much delay and investigation that it would be impracticable
for him to assume it. For this reason, the bill will be
vetoed.

POTOMAC RIVER.
(Chapter 239, Senate Bill 127.)

This bill authorizes the fixing and marking of a line on
the Maryland side of the Potomac River, and makes it un-
lawful to dredge or scrape oysters at any season of the year
from the waters north of this line. The bill contemplated the
passage of Senate Bill 164, opening the Potomac River to
dredging. The Conservation Commissioner advises me that
inasmuch as the latter bill did not pass, there is no need for
Senate Bill 127, so this measure will be vetoed.

PRACTICING LAW WITHOUT ADMISSION
TO THE BAR.

(Chapter 176, House Bill 202.)

The existing law (Article 10, Section 19 of the Code)
makes it a misdemeanor for any person to receive from any
person whatsoever any fee for his advice as an attorney at
law without having been admitted to the Bar.

House Bill 202 makes it unlawful for any person or corpo-
ration to receive, directly or indirectly, from any other per-
son or corporation whatsoever any fee for the advice or
service of an attorney at law, when such person shall not
have been admitted to the Bar.

While the purpose of this bill may be quite different, yet
its provisions raise the question whether, if this bill is ap-
proved, title companies, which by the existing law (Article
27, Section 19 of the Code) may examine and insure titles,
would hereafter in so doing, be really practicing law, and
thus be subject to the penalties of this bill.

The object of House Bill 202, as explained to me, is to
cover one exceptional case, but I do not believe this is im-
portant enough to run the risk to the established title com-
pany business which the possibility just suggested would
involve. Indeed, it seems to me that the case in question
could be met by disciplinary action, without legislation.

 

clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Session Laws, 1933 Session
Volume 421, Page 1363   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  October 06, 2023
Maryland State Archives