Commissioners of Vienna v. Phillips Packing Co.

• Decision Date: 13 April 1955
• Docket Number: No. 82,82
• Citation: 113 A.2d 89,207 Md. 12
• Parties: COMMISSIONERS OF VIENNA v. PHILLIPS PACKING COMPANY, Inc.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 12

207 Md. 12

113 A.2d 89

COMMISSIONERS OF VIENNA v. PHILLIPS PACKING COMPANY, Inc.

No. 82.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

April 13, 1955.

J. Edgar Harvey and Harry H. Cropper, Salisbury, for appellant.

Frederick P. McBriety, Cambridge (McBriety & Mace and Richard M. Matthews, Cambridge, on the brief), for appellee.

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

BRUNE, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Dorchester County directing the issuance of a writ of mandamus requiring the appellant, the Commissioners of Vienna, a municipal corporation (the Town), to issue a license to the appellee, Phillips Packing Company, Inc. (Phillips), to operate migratory labor barracks in the Town of Vienna for the year 1954.

The case is the third and (so far) the last of a series of suits between the parties relating to Phillips' new barracks for migratory workers at its canning plant in Vienna, and it is the only one of the three brought to this Court on appeal. The first suit was instituted by the Town late in 1952 or early in 1953 to obtain an injunction to prevent the construction of the new barracks. It appears to have been decided in favor of Phillips on the ground that the ordinance upon which it was based had been invalidly adopted. The second suit, seeking a like injunction, was based on a building ordinance enacted in 1953, which is also involved in the present case (and which seemingly was adopted to replace the ordinance held invalid in the first suit). The second suit was brought early in 1954, and the injunction was denied a few weeks before the present case was tried. While that suit was pending Phillips applied to the Town for a license to operate its new barracks, the application was denied and this suit was instituted to compel the issuance of the license.

The Charter of Vienna provides in part as follows, Code of Public Local Laws, Article 10, §§ 531, 533:

'531. The Commissioners may pass any and all ordinances not inconsistent with the laws of Maryland, they may deem beneficial to the town; and the good government thereof; to prevent, remove or abate all nuisance; * * * to regulate the erection and location of buildings, fences and enclosures in said town and to grant permits therefor; * * * to promote the morality, health, convenience and safety of the inhabitants of said town; to enforce sanitary observances and the removal of filth, and to pass all such other ordinances as they deem necessary for the preservation of the health of the town and the removal of nuisances from said town; to prohibit all business within the said town as shall, in their opinion, injuriously affect the sanitary conditions thereof or depreciate the value of adjoining property; and for the drainage of the town; to cause the drains and water courses of said town to be kept open and in repair.

* * *

* * *

'533. The said Commissioners shall also have power to impose license fees on any business, occupation or employment conducted in said town whether temporary or permanent; * * *.'

On August 4, 1953, the Town adopted two Ordinances which are involved in this litigation. The first of them, designated as No. 7, New Series, established a building code applicable to any building thereafter 'built, enlarged, altered or moved'. The second ordinance, designated as No. 8, New Series, required that anyone wishing to operate a barracks for migrant or transient labor must obtain an annual license to do so, fixed the license fee at $25, and prohibited the issuance of such a license for the use of premises which did not comply with the building code established under Ordinance No. 7.

The appellee and a predecessor corporation have operated a canning plant at Vienna for about forty years. The plant operates only during the tomato packing season, which runs from roughly the middle of July to the latter part of September, but there are and long have been barracks on the packing plant property which are used to house migrant laborers. These workers usually arrive in early June and remain until about the first of October. Before the Phillips plant begins operations they work as bean pickers on nearby farms, and Phillips needs the beans for canning. In the past, several families have stayed in the old barracks during the winter, and there was testimony indicating serious overcrowding of the old barracks during the summer season. Primarily, as a result of delay due to the earlier litigation, and in part because of a change in plan, the new barracks which are involved in this litigation were built (with the exception of a part of the foundation for one structure) in 1954, and they replaced old and thoroughly dilapidated barracks. No permit for their construction was obtained and, as above stated, the Town's effort to enjoin their construction failed.

Though the present case arises under the licensing ordinance, the controversy turns in large part on the validity and applicability of the building ordinance, since the refusal of the license was based upon noncompliance with the building code.

Some provisions of that code which appear to be pertinent are contained in Sections 3, 14 and 41. Under Section 3(a), no building may be built, enlarged, altered or moved without a permit, and applications for permits must be made in a prescribed manner. Section 14 contains requirements with regard to windows to afford light and ventilation for habitable rooms. Section 41 deals with plumbing and requires, inter alia, by Par. 2(a), that every building in which people live, work or congregate shall be provided with an ample water supply and, by Par. 3(a), that 'except as otherwise prescribed by law or ordinance, in every existing building * * * and in every building hereafter erected, where there is continuous human occupancy * * *, there shall be a sufficient number of suitable and convenient water closets, properly connected with the drainage system.'

The appellant places emphasis upon (1) the definition of an 'apartment' contained in Section 7 as 'a room or suite of two or more rooms, in a residence building occupied as the home or residence of an individual, family or household', (2) the requirement contained in Section 41, Par. 3(b) that 'In dwellings and multi-family houses there...