Moore v. Board of License Com'rs of Prince George's County, 1

• Decision Date: 08 January 1954
• Docket Number: No. 1,M,1
• Citation: 102 A.2d 272,203 Md. 502
• Parties: MOORE v. BOARD OF LICENSE COM'RS OF PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY. isc. 1953.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 502

203 Md. 502

102 A.2d 272

MOORE v. BOARD OF LICENSE COM'RS OF PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY.

No. 1, Misc. 1953.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Jan. 8, 1954.

Earl J. Lombard, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

George T. Burrough, Upper Marlboro, for appellee.

Before SOBELOFF, C. J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, HENDERSON and HAMMOND, JJ.

SOBELOFF, Chief Judge.

This petition for a writ of certiorari seeks review of a decision of the Circuit Court for Prince George's County reversing a determination of the Board of License Commissioners of that County and directing that a license authorizing the sale of alcoholic beverages be issued to respondent.

Article 2B, Section 166, 1951 Code, provides for review by the appropriate court of a determination of a board of license commissioners and states that except for the limited situation when the court decides a point of law at variance with any decision previously rendered by any other judge of the state on the same question, no further appeal may be taken from the decision rendered, no matter how erroneous, to the Court of Appeals. Brashears v. Lindenbaum, 189 Md. 619, 56 A.2d 844; Gianforte v. Board of License Commissioners for Baltimore City, 190 Md. 492, 58 A.2d 902. Petitioners recognize this limitation of their right to a review and contend in their petition that the court below, upon the appeal from the Board, did not proceed in strict accordance with Article 2B, Section 166, but on the contrary interpreted the zoning laws of Maryland and the zoning ordinance enacted for Prince George's County in finding that the respondent's property was non-conforming and therefore available for a liquor license. This, they say, was a question exclusively for the District Zoning Council for Prince George's County and beyond the jurisdiction of the circuit court upon appeal from the Board of License Commissioners.

We find it unnecessary to decide whether the court acted in excess of its jurisdiction, for this question could have been raised directly by appeal and therefore cannot be reviewed upon a writ of certiorari. Cf. Superintendent of Maryland State Reformatory for Males v. Calman, Md., 101 A.2d 207. Chief Judge Boyd, facing the same question, declared: 'We have frequently decided that, although when a statute gives the right of appeal to the lower court and no appeal is expressly given to this court ordinarily we have no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from the judgment of the lower court, if the lower court and the justice or other tribunal appealed from did not have jurisdiction we would entertain an appeal or writ of error on that ground. As that is thoroughly established in this state, it would of itself be sufficient reason for refusing to grant a writ of certiorari to test the question of jurisdiction, as appeals or writs of error are the usual methods of bringing cases before this court for review, and nothing could be accomplished in such cases by writs of certiorari, which could not be by one of those methods.' Hendrick v. State, 115 Md. 552, 557, 81 A. 18, 19.

But beyond that, the power of the Court of Appeals to issue a writ of certiorari is limited. See 2 Poe, page 696, fn. 18; and 2 Poe, Sec. 722. Chief Judge Marbury defined the extent of that power: 'This court has appellate jurisdiction only, and is not authorized to issue writs of certiorari except in aid of that jurisdiction, or as a statutory method of exercising that jurisdiction. Code Art. 5 [Sec. 105, 1951]; State v. Depew, 175 Md. 274, 1 A.2d 626. If we...