Dinneen v. Rider

• Decision Date: 11 February 1927
• Docket Number: 111.
• Parties: DINNEEN ET AL. v. RIDER ET AL.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

136 A. 754

152 Md. 343

DINNEEN ET AL. v. RIDER ET AL.

No. 111.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

February 11, 1927

Appeal from Circuit Court for Baltimore County; Walter W. Preston Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Suit by Henry H. Dinneen and wife against Harrison Rider and others as the Governing Roard of Baltimore County Metropolitan District, and also constituting the Board of County Commissioners of Baltimore County, and another, wherein the Harford Corporation was made a party plaintiff with the original complainants. Decree of dismissal, and complainants appeal. Affirmed.

Argued before BOND, C.J., and PATTISON, URNER, ADKINS, DIGGES PARKE, and SLOAN, JJ.

Henry H. Dinneen, of Baltimore (Harry M. Benzinger, of Baltimore and J. Howard Murray, of Towson, on the brief), for appellants.

William L. Marbury, Jr., and George Weems Williams, both of Baltimore (Elmer J. Cook, of Towson, and David G. McIntosh, Jr., and Charles B. Bosley, both of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellees.

PARKE J.

The bill of complaint in this case against the governing board of the Baltimore county metropolitan district and the board of county commissioners of Baltimore county and the treasurer of Baltimore county, the appellees, was filed by the appellants Henry H. Dinneen and Eleanor H. Dinneen, his wife, for the benefit of themselves and on behalf of all other taxpayers of Baltimore county who would come in and contribute to the cost of the proceedings. The Harford Corporation was made a party plaintiff, and with the original complainants are the appellants from a decree of the chancellor sustaining a demurrer to the bill of complaint and dismissing it with costs to the defendants.

The appellants are taxpayers to Baltimore county, and are the owners of real estate situated in what is known as the metropolitan district of Baltimore county, and seek to have the Act of the General Assembly of Maryland of 1924, known as chapter 539, declared void, and its enforcement enjoined: (1) Because the Act violates article 16 of the Maryland Constitution; (2) because the title of the act is defective and obscure and misleading; (3) because it denies to the appellants due process of law; (4) because it withdraws from the appellants the equal protection of the law; (5) because the act is contiscatory; (6) because it violates the Maryland Constitution in (a) authorizing the issuance of bonds upon the credit of the county for other than public purposes, and (b) sanctioning double taxation; and (7) because it impairs the obligation of contract between the appellants and Baltimore city.

The act thus assailed erected a specific portion of Baltimore county contiguous to Baltimore city into what was designated as the "Baltimore county metropolitan district," and placed it under the administration of the members of the board of county commissioners of Baltimore county as the governing board of the Baltimore county metropolitan district. The purpose of the legislation is to provide the populous territory of Baltimore county adjacent to Baltimore city with adequate water supply, sewerage, and storm water drainage system. For the accomplishment of these objects the commissioners are invested with the right to acquire whatever property may be necessary by purchase or through the exercise of the granted power of eminent domain, except that no property may be condemned within the territorial limits of Baltimore city, and, further, that none of the properties plants, franchises, and rights of the mayor and city council of Baltimore now by it owned, or that by it may in the future be acquired for the protection or enlargement of its water supply, sewerage, storm water drainage or refuse disposal systems or any other utility property, shall be taken except by and with the consent of the mayor and city council of Baltimore. Section 3.

As soon as possible after organization, from time to time thereafter, the commissioners shall cause surveys, studies, plans, specifications, and estimates to be made for all those parts of the district in which there is, in their judgment, a need for water supply, sewerage, or drainage; and shall divide the district into water, sewerage, or drainage subdistricts in such a way as shall in their judgment best serve the needs of the various communities, and shall promote convenience and economy of installation and operation; and, after such subdistricts have been created, they shall be numerically designated in the order of their creation as metropolitan subdistricts, and shall therafter be known by the designation so given. Whenever and as plans are completed for those subdistricts most needing service, the commissioners shall give notice by publication for two successive weeks in one or more newspapers published in Baltimore county that said improvements are contemplated, that the boundaries of the subdistricts have been established, and the classifications provided by section 9 of the act into (1) agricultural; (2) small acreage; (3) industrial or business; and (4) subdivision property--have been made, and that at a time specified in the notice, which shall be at least five days after its expiration, any person interested in the improvements will be heard. After public hearing, the decision of the commissioners as to the areas to be included and the improvements to be carried on in any subdistrict shall be final. Upon these proceedings, the commissioners are authorized to proceed with the acquisition or construction of water supply, sewerage, or storm drainage systems in such respective subdistricts. Section 4.

The act authorizes the proper authorities of Baltimore city to make extensions of water supply lines for and in the district whenever and wherever requested in writing by the commissioners. These extensions are to be paid for by the commissioners, and the cost thereof is subject to review by the Public Service Commission. There is a further provision that the proper authorities of Baltimore city are authorized and directed to make installation of water supply service pipes to be connected to its water mains whenever and wherever requested in writing by an individual, firm, or corporation owning property within the district, provided the applicant shall, before work is begun, deposit with the city of Baltimore a sufficient sum of money to cover such cost of installation, with the right to have reviewed by the Public Service Commission this cost, if the parties disagree. There is a supplementary provision that, as soon as such extensions have been constructed by the city of Baltimore in the district, the operation thereof shall be in the hands of the proper authorities of Baltimore city, which shall maintain and operate the extensions efficiently, and establish and collect the water rates, subject to a prescribed control by the Public Service Commission. Sections 5, 6.

The commissioners and the proper authorities of Baltimore city and Anne Arundel county are authorized to enter into any agreement with each other with respect to the disposal of sewage or drainage or with regard to any other matter necessary for the proper construction or operation of the water supply, sewerage, or drainage systems under their contract. Section 7. The commissioners are required to extend necessary connections from the water main and sewer to the property line of every property abutting upon a street or right of way in which a main or sewer is laid. These extensions for connections are generally to be made at the sole expense of the commissioners. When the water main or sewer is ready for service, the abutting owners, after notice, may be compelled to connect their premises by completing the extensions on their property, with the exceptions: (a) That no water company shall be required to stop the use of any spring or well used by it to supply its patrons with water fit for domestic use, or cease to supply such patrons with water, or to connect its water supply system with the one established by the commissioners, unless and until the commissioners shall acquire the water supply system and property of the company; and (b) that no property owner having upon his such abutting premises any spring or well supplying water fit for domestic use shall be required to give up the use of such spring or well, or to connect his property or premises with, or to take the supply of water for his premises from, the water supply system of the district; and (c) that no property owner having upon his such abutting premises a private sewerage system of a defined type for the disposal of sewage originating on his own such premises shall be compelled to abandon it or connect with the sewerage system of the district, unless not kept in an efficient and working sanitary condition, or unless such connection shall be required by the state board of health. It may be observed at this point that a property owner within any of these exceptions is merely relieved of the necessity of accepting the service provided by the district and paying the charge therefor, but neither expressly nor impliedly does the act relieve him or his property of any assessment or other general charge imposed as a result of the construction, maintenance, and operation of the public utility. The service is at his command, and his property shares with the other abutting properties in the common benefit of this advantageous and available service, and any exemption of him or his property from the common burden of its installation and upkeep would have been unjustifiable. Sections 8, 5, 6, 4, 9.

The funds necessary for meeting the expenses of the commissioners and for designing and construction, purchase, or acquisition of the water supply, sewerage, and drainage systems contemplated are provided in the...