|
294 LAWS OF MARYLAND,
|
|
[CH. 92
|
|
|
1936
|
1937
|
|
Estate of Catherine A. Schuck......................................
|
77.47
|
|
|
Safe Deposit and Trust Co., Executor, Es-
|
|
|
|
tate of Waldo Newcomer............................................
|
$584.29
|
|
|
Sharer & Hering
|
100.00
|
|
|
Harry Agular
|
416.67
|
|
|
Sherwood Brothers, Inc...................................................
|
12.96
|
|
|
Sun Underwriters Insurance Company.............
|
20.00
|
|
|
Estate of Arthur Wallenhorst..................................
|
100.00
|
|
|
25 For the refund of money erroneously paid into
|
|
|
|
the State Treasury, subject to the approval
|
|
|
|
of the State Comptroller:
|
|
|
|
W. W. Barnes, Executor, Estate of Marie
|
|
|
|
Tibbetts .
|
360.29
|
|
|
Pan-American Refinery Corporation and
|
|
|
|
Mexican Petroleum Corp...................................................
|
9,745.25
|
|
|
26 To the State Insurance Department in addi-
|
|
|
|
tion to the appropriation shown on page
|
|
|
|
18 of the printed bill, for the salary of the
|
|
|
|
Deputy Commissioner
|
3,557.00
|
$3,557.00
|
|
28 To the State Tobacco Warehouse, in addition
|
|
|
|
to the appropriation shown on page 90 of
|
|
|
|
the printed bill for the salaries of two Tobac-
|
|
|
|
co Graders in accordance with Chapter 325,
|
|
|
|
of the Acts of 1933......................................................................
|
2,376.00
|
2,376.00
|
|
Total Direct Appropriations from General
|
|
|
|
Funds ...............................................................
|
$202,493.67
|
$148,587.00
|
|
III. — Contingent Appropriations from General Funds:
|
|
|
|
1. For a State Department of Engineering, in
|
|
|
|
accordance with legislation providing therefor
|
$12,500.00
|
$12,500.00
|
|
2. For the survey of various departments,
|
|
|
|
boards, institutions, commissions and other
|
|
|
|
State agencies, in accordance with legislation
|
|
|
|
providing therefor ................................................
|
50,000.00
|
|
|
3. For adjustment of the claim of Morgan Col-
|
|
|
|
lege against the University of Maryland by
|
|
|
|
reason of acquisition of the property of the
|
|
|
|
Princess Anne Academy in the event of an
|
|
|
|
agreement involving a total outlay of $100,000
|
|
|
|
in accordance with legislation providing there-
|
|
|
|
for ...........................................................................
|
25,000.00
|
25,000.00
|
