Hall v. Tabler

• Decision Date: 14 January 1937
• Docket Number: 89.
• Citation: 189 A. 206,171 Md. 449
• Parties: HALL v. TABLER ET AL., STATE ROADS COMMISSION.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

189 A. 206

171 Md. 449

HALL v. TABLER ET AL., STATE ROADS COMMISSION.

No. 89.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

January 14, 1937

Appeal from Superior Court of Baltimore City; Rowland K. Adams Judge.

Petition for writ of mandamus by Manny W. Hall against Homer E. Tabler and others, constituting the State Roads Commission of Maryland. From an adverse judgment, the petitioner appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before BOND, C.J., and OFFUTT, PARKE, SLOAN, MITCHELL SHEHAN, and JOHNSON, JJ.

Philander B. Briscoe, of Baltimore (Briscoe & Jones, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.

Thomas M. Jenifer, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen. (Herbert R. O'Conor Atty. Gen., on the brief), for appellees.

MITCHELL Judge.

The appeal in this case is from a judgment of the superior court of Baltimore city, denying a petition for a writ of mandamus, and dismissing the same.

The petition sets forth that Manny W. Hall, the petitioner, was prior to the 21st day of April, 1933, a member of the personnel theretofore employed by the County Commissioners of Calvert County in its public road work, and that the said County Commissioners were on said date the duly constituted road authority of said county. It then alleges that as such employee, on said 21st day of April, 1933, under and by virtue of the provisions of section 7C of chapter 425 of the Acts of 1933, now codified as article 89B, section 7C, of the 1935 Supplement of the Code of Maryland, he was employed by the appellees, the State Roads Commission, as a road foreman, engaged in the same type of work in said county; that he rendered efficient service in such capacity, but, notwithstanding that fact, he was, without justification, discharged on August 15, 1935, and from that date until the 25th day of November, 1935, when he was reinstated by the appellees, he was paid no wages by the latter, and was unable to secure gainful employment in any other occupation.

Based on the per hour rate of compensation paid him at the time of his discharge, the petitioner alleges a claim of $322 as being due him by the appellees for the period in which it is alleged he was unlawfully discharged; a demand upon the appellees for the payment of the same, and their refusal to accede to such demand.

The petition concludes with a prayer that the writ of mandamus be issued commanding the State Roads Commission to include, or cause to be included, in their pay roll, the name of the petitioner for the payment to him of said sum, as wages or salary for the period of his discharge, and further commanding said commission to certify, or cause to be certified, to the comptroller of the state, for the issuance of his warrant or check in favor of the petitioner, to the end that the claim be paid.

The answer of the commission admits the original employment of the petitioner by the County Commissioners of Calvert County, at the time the road work of the county was taken over by the State Roads Commission, under the authority of chapter 425 of the Acts of 1933, and also admits his discharge by the appellees; but denies that the discharge was without justification, and alleges that the same was fully pursuant to the terms of the statute and within the legal powers and authority of the commission. It admits the demand for payment and the refusal to pay the alleged wages; and, further answering, submits that the petition should be dismissed because the petitioner is not in law entitled to the writ of mandamus, and because the petitioner had theretofore filed suit in the same court against the commission, in which a demurrer was filed and sustained, and a subsequent judgment rendered in favor of the commission; that in said suit the parties and subject matter were identical with the parties and subject matter involved in the petition; and that therefore the doctrine of res adjudicata applies in this case. Finally, it is submitted in the answer that the petition should be dismissed, for the reason that it is an effort on the part of the petitioner to sue the state through the commission, its duly constituted agency.

To the answer a replication was filed, whereby issue was joined as to the justification and legal authority for the dismissal of the petition; and the questions of res adjudicata, and the right to sue the commission as a state agency, as set forth in the answer, demurred to.

The case was heard by the court below on the state of the pleadings herein set out.

Chapter 425 of the Acts of 1933, to which reference has hereinbefore been made, was enacted for the purpose of extending the activities of the State Roads Commission, by vesting in that body the authority to...