Chayt v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Baltimore City

• Decision Date: 23 May 1940
• Docket Number: 52.
• Citation: 13 A.2d 614,178 Md. 400
• Parties: CHAYT et ux. v. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF BALTIMORE CITY et al.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

13 A.2d 614

178 Md. 400

CHAYT et ux. v. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF BALTIMORE CITY et al.

No. 52.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

May 23, 1940

Appeal from Baltimore City Court; J. Craig McLanahan, Judge.

Suit by Leon Chayt and Rose Chayt, his wife, against the Board of Zoning Appeals of Baltimore City, etc., and others, for an injunction restraining the erection of certain buildings, on the ground that such buildings would be a nonconforming use not permitted by zoning ordinance. From an order of the Baltimore City Court affirming the action of the Board of Zoning Appeals permitting the erection of the buildings, Leon Chayt and Rose Chayt, his wife, appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, 9 A.2d 747, reversed the order and remanded the case for passage of an order in accordance with opinion. From the order of the Baltimore City Court Leon Chayt and Rose Chayt, his wife, appeal.

Order reversed, and case remanded for issuance of injunction in conformity with opinion.

Edward H. Burke and William Hoffenberg, both of Baltimore (Bowie & Burke, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellants.

William H. Marshall, Asst. City Sol., of Baltimore (Charles C. G Evans, City Sol., of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee Board of Zoning Appeals.

William A. Grimes, of Baltimore (Ritchie, Janney, Ober & Williams, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee Frainie Bros.

Argued before OFFUTT, PARKE, SLOAN, MITCHELL, SHEHAN, JOHNSON, and DELAPLAINE, JJ.

SHEHAN Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of the Baltimore City Court, and raises the question whether this order conforms to, and carries out, the terms of a mandate of the Court of Appeals in the case wherein Leon Chayt, and his wife, had brought suit for the purpose of restraining the Maryland Jockey Club and Frainie Brothers, from erecting on certain lots of ground owned by the Jockey Club a stable of frame construction. In the case wherein this mandate was passed, being No. 27 at the October Term, 1939, it appears that the appellants were the owners and occupants of a dwelling house to the North of the Pimlico Race Track in Baltimore City. Frainie Brothers had contracted with the Jockey Club to erect a stable on its lands which lay outside of the northwest corner of its track enclosure at the rear of appellants' dwelling house. The appellants then filed a petition in the Baltimore City Court appealing from the action of the Zoning Board in granting a permit to erect this stable, and praying an injunction to prohibit the building of this structure. The Baltimore City Court affirmed the order of the Board and dismissed the petition. Thereupon an appeal was taken and in a decision rendered December 13 1939, and reported in 9 A.2d 747, this Court reversed the order of the lower Court, holding that under the Baltimore City Zoning Ordinance, the stable could not be constructed since the lot involved was subject to residential zoning restrictions and this Court passed the following order 'the order appealed from must be reversed and the case remanded for passage of an order restraining the use as proposed, because not permitted under the Zoning Ordinance of the City.' The case being thus remanded, the lower Court issued an order restraining the use of the property, 'pursuant to the permit granted in accordance with the Order of the Board of Zoning Appeals dated September 27, 1938.' These complainants appealed from this order contending that it did not give to them the relief as directed by the mandate, because it does not conform to it. The order only restrains the use of the property, 'as a stable, pursuant to the permit granted in accordance with the Order of the Board of Zoning Appeals dated September 27, 1938,' and thus limiting the injunction to this particular permit instead of enjoining the use of the property for the building of a stable. It is contended that the mandate went much further than dealing with the particular permit but applies to the use of the lots for any stable, and so the order as passed clearly modifies and restricts the terms and provisions of the mandate as handed down.

There can be no question that the lower Court cannot revise or disregard any mandate of this Court. The Constitution of Maryland provides, Article 4, Section 15, with respect to appeals to this Court, 'The judgment of the court shall be final and conclusive,' and it is obvious therefore, as stated in the case of Waters v. Waters, 28 Md. 11, at page 22: 'No principle is better established than that a decision of the Court of Appeals once...