Christmas v. Warfield

• Decision Date: 03 April 1907
• Citation: 66 A. 491,105 Md. 530
• Parties: CHRISTMAS v. WARFIELD et al.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

66 A. 491

105 Md. 530

CHRISTMAS v. WARFIELD et al.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

April 3, 1907

Appeal from Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City; Pere L. Wickes Judge.

Action by James M. Christmas against Edwin Warfield and others. From an order sustaining a demurrer to the bill and dismissing the bill, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Argued before BRISCOE, BOYD, PEARCE, SCHMUCKER, BURKE, and ROGERS JJ.

Isaac Lobe Straus, for appellant.

Atty Gen. Bryan, for appellees.

BURKE J.

The appellant filed a bill of complaint in the circuit court No 2 of Baltimore City against the appellees, praying that "a preliminary and a perpetual injunction may issue restraining the defendants, and each of them, from acting or assuming in any manner to act as a state tobacco warehouse building commission for any purpose, or in any respect whatsoever, and further restraining and enjoining them, and each of them, from doing any act or thing or taking any steps or proceedings whatsoever to demolish, or cause to be demolished, any of the existing tobacco warehouses of the state of Maryland, and particularly tobacco warehouse No. 4 and section B of tobacco warehouse No. 3; and restraining and enjoining them, and each of them, from entering into any contract upon the part of the state of Maryland, or in any manner involving the funds of said state, or any of them, for the preparation of plans or specifications for a new building to serve as a state tobacco warehouse or for the construction or building of any such warehouse, and particularly of a warehouse consisting of eight stories and with a capacity for the storage and inspection of about 20,000 hogsheads of tobacco upon the site of warehouse No. 4 and section B of warehouse No. 3; and further restraining and enjoining said defendants from expending, disbursing, charging, pledging, or contracting in any manner whatsoever with reference to said funds of $267,000, mentioned in said bill of complaint, or any part of the same." The appellees demurred to the entire bill, which demurrer the court sustained, and by its order, passed on the 17th day of January, 1907, the bill of complaint was dismissed, and from that order the appeal in this case was taken.

The bill was filed by the appellant, James M. Christmas, as a property owner, taxpayer, and resident of Prince George's county, Md., on his own behalf and in behalf of all other taxpayers of the state, who might care to come in and avail themselves of the suit. The facts, which are admitted by the demurrer, are that the complainant is a taxpayer as alleged; that prior to the 7th and 8th of February, 1904, the state of Maryland had five tobacco warehouse in Baltimore City, whose capacity for the storage and inspection of tobacco was so much in excess of actual needs for such purposes that one of said warehouses, to wit, No. 2, was leased to the Pennsylvania Railroad Company; that of said five warehouses Nos. 3 and 2 were destroyed by said fire, and that the insurance money accruing as indemnity to the state for the destruction of said two warehouses, and also from the sale of the sites on which said two warehouses were located, together with the sum paid the state by the city of Baltimore for a part of a lot belonging to the state, and taken by the said city for the purpose of widening Light street therein, amounted to the sum of $267,000, which sum was and is now credited to the state tobacco warehouse fund, and is a part of the public money of the state of Maryland; that the appellees propose to destroy said warehouses, and to build a new warehouse, and in doing so are assuming to act as the state tobacco warehouse building commission, created by Acts 1906, p. 1352, c. 804. The bill charges that the destruction of said warehouses and the erection of a new one, as the defendants propose to do, and which they are about to begin and carry out, would be not only unlawful, but would result in a total loss of said sum of $267,000 belonging to the state, and would involve the loss of valuable state in an enterprise, which would be fraught with undesirable burdens and heavy and constant pecuniary losses to the state, and that the pursuance of the proposed plans as indicated would commit the state to an unwise, discredited, and obsolete policy, which its best interests would require to be abandoned. The bill then sets out in detail facts tending to establish this allegation of waste, extravagance, and unbusiness like policy. The grounds upon which he rests his right to relief are: First, the unconstitutionality of Acts 1906, p. 1352, c. 804, under the authority of which the appellees are assuming to act; secondly, that, assuming said act to be valid, it confers upon the appellees no authority to do the things they are about to do, and hence their proposed plans and acts are ultra vires, and their consummation by the defendants, being unauthorized by law, should be restrained by the court. The act is said to be unconstitutional and void, because, it is asserted, the subject-matter of the act is not described in its title, as required by Const. art. 3, § 29.

If this objection be well taken, the act must be stricken down, and the undertaking of the appellees arrested. In the case of Fout and Others v. County Commissioners of Frederick County, 66 A. 487, we had an occasion to consider, and state with some particularity, the purpose and operation of that article and section of the Constitution, and we do not deem it necessary to repeat what was there said with respect to that subject. In the case of Kafka v. Wilkinson, 99 Md. 238, 57 A. 617, the court, speaking through Judge Jones in reference to the frequency with which this section of the Constitution had been considered, said: "It has received a liberal construction, and the courts have been reluctant in any case to give it an operation which would defeat the legislative intent; yet they have not hesitated to strike down legislative acts that were clear infractions of its purpose and object. These have been declared to be two-fold. The first is to prevent the combination in one act of several distinct and incongruous subjects, and the second is that the Legislature and the people of the state may be fairly advised of the real nature of impending legislation. It would seem that if the object of the constitutional provision in question is to be respected, and is to have meaning and effect in controlling legislation, the considerations which have just been mentioned must have a controlling effect in applying it." In the earlier case...