Garrett County Sanitary Dist., Inc. v. Mayor and Town Council of Oakland

• Decision Date: 02 April 1968
• Docket Number: No. 175,175
• Citation: 249 Md. 400,240 A.2d 228
• Parties: GARRETT COUNTY SANITARY DISTRICT, INC. v. The MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL OF OAKLAND.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 400

249 Md. 400

240 A.2d 228

GARRETT COUNTY SANITARY DISTRICT, INC. v. The MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL OF OAKLAND.

No. 175.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

April 2, 1968.

Jack R. Turney, Oakland, for appellant.

William W. Grant, Oakland, for appellee.

Before HAMMOND, C. J., and HORNEY, BARNES, FINAN and SINGLEY, JJ.

HAMMOND, Chief Judge.

This appeal is a legal brother of Myers v. Chief of Baltimore County Fire Bureau, 237 Md. 583, 590-591, 207 A.2d 467, 471. There the lower court sustained a demurrer to a petition seeking a declaration that the petitioner, a Baltimore County firefighter, was entitled to a disability pension. The petitioner clearly was not entitled to such a pension. We said:

'In the case at bar, appellant requested relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, Code (1957), Article 31A. The court below sustained a demurrer to the petition, and made no declaration of rights. We have stated in, at least, five recent cases that demurrers rarely should be sustained or bills dismissed without a declaration of the rights of the parties, when declaratory judgment relief is prayed. Maryland Committee for Fair Representation v. Tawes, 228 Md. 412, 180 A.2d 656; Reed v. Pres. and Com'rs of (Town of) North East, 226 Md. 229, 172 A.2d 536; John B. Robeson Associates Inc. v. Gardens (of Faith, Inc.), 226 Md. 215, 172 A.2d 529; Shapiro v. Board of County Comm., 219 Md. 298, 149 A.2d 396; Case v. Comptroller, 219 Md. 282, 149 A.2d 6. This is not only the rule here, but elsewhere. See the authorities cited in Case, supra, 219 Md. p. 288, 149 A.2d 6. The test to be applied when a demurrer is filed to a declaratory judgment action is set forth in Shapiro, supra, 219 Md. pp. 302, 303, 149 A.2d 396. ¹ However in view of what we have held above, it would be of no substantial benefit to the parties to require the trial court to declare their respective rights; therefore, without intending to establish a precedent, we shall not reverse the order on this point.'

In the case before us the appellant, the Garrett County Sanitary District, Inc., which is appealing from the sustaining of a demurrer to its petition for declaratory relief, alleged in its petition below that the Mayor and Council of Oakland by its delaying and harassing behavior had:

'jeopardized the chances of the entire Sanitary District to engage in a construction plan for the location and operation of a single sewage treatment facility for the three municipalities of Oakland-Loch Lynn-Mt. Lake Park, this treatment facility and interceptor line to be made available for a per consumer cost of approximately $2.60 per year.

'That said complainants have now established a schedule involving the preparation and marketing of a bond issue (which entails the investigation and certification by bonding counsel prior to the bond sale), a definite date for the advertising of construction bids and a deadline for the accepting of the very favorable state and federal assistance (at least 75%) and these schedules and deadlines are critically impaired by the inaction and delaying tactics being employed by the respondent; in the event the schedule defined above is not met, the entire project as outlined above for providing sewage treatment facilities for not only the Town of Oakland, but also the two towns of Mountain Lake Park and Loch Lynn will be completely voided and lost and six years of effort and toil on behalf of the said complainant will have been wasted and in addition to this, an advance of approximately $26,500.00 for the bid plans identified above will also be voided.

'That controversy submitted herein is not a moot or abstract question and specifically involves the property rights of numerous citizens of the Town of Loch Lynn, Mt. Lake Park, and Oakland, and in addition to this the time and money involved in the six years of preparatory effort expended by the said complainant will also be completely negated should the municipality of Oakland be allowed to continue to employ its delaying or harassing tactics and this loss of time and effort and money would be a direct loss to the citizens and taxpayers of not only the Sanitary District involved, but the entire County of Garrett, Maryland.'

The Sanitary Commission sought a declaration:

'That a final decree be entered by the Court stating the Municipality of Oakland is an integral part of Garrett County Sanitary District No. 1, and therefore, subject to the direction and control of the said corporate entity administering the said district, this corporate entity being controlled by its Board, the Garrett County Sanitary Commission.

'That the said decree further contain a provision that as a result of the said municipality being subject to control and authority of the said complainant, it is not at liberty to withdraw from the said District and further is not privileged to delay and harass the efforts of your complainant in attempting to provide an approved economical interceptor system and sewage treatment facility for the three towns located within said Sanitary District.'

Judge Hamill, in sustaining Oakland's demurrer to the Sanitary Commission's petition, said:

'I can't see that these municipalities are losing their inherent statutory powers and authority to operate their sewerage systems. I think the purpose of the commission is to coordinate them and establish maybe a single unit for all, in this case the three municipalities, but in the absence of contractual arrangements, I don't see where they have the authority to do it. In the absence of specific authority to the contrary, I hold that the commission does not have the right or the power or the authority to impose its sewerage system upon the town of Oakland * * *. Now we have answered the second issue, did the municipality-and I think by...