Psalmist Baptist Church v. Board of Zoning Appeals

• Decision Date: 14 June 1938
• Docket Number: 30.
• Citation: 199 A. 815,175 Md. 7
• Parties: PSALMIST BAPTIST CHURCH et al. v. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS et al.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

199 A. 815

175 Md. 7

PSALMIST BAPTIST CHURCH et al. v. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS et al.

No. 30.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

June 14, 1938

Appeal from Baltimore City Count; Robert F. Stanton, Judge.

Proceedings by Psalmist Baptist Church and Mt. Olivet Baptist Church against the Board of Zoning Appeals, Louis Shane and wife, to reopen the proceedings by Emma D. Roach, trustee, etc against the defendants to prevent the last-named defendants from enlarging their ice plant. From an order dismissing plaintiffs' petition, plaintiffs appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

Where proceedings to prevent enlargement of ice plant had been decided by city court in favor of owner of plant, and a petition to reopen proceedings was filed by others than plaintiff on ground petitioners had not formerly known of proceedings and petitioners had additional facts which should be brought to court's attention, and petition was dismissed, petitioners had no right to appeal, since petition could be no more than motion for new trial by parties to appeal to city court from which no appeal would lie. Ernest Fadum, of Baltimore (Josiah F. Henry, Jr., of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellants.

Meyer Reamer, of Baltimore (William Curran, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellees Louis Shane and wife.

J Francis Ireton, Asst. City Sol., of Baltimore (R. E. Lee Marshall, City Sol., of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee Board of Zoning Appeals.

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

SLOAN Judge.

One month from the day No. 29, Roach v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 199 A. 812, was decided by the City Court, the Psalmist Baptist Church and Mount Olivet Church of Baltimore two churches located in the zone affected by the proceedings in that case, filed a petition to the court to reopen the case, saying that the case had just come to their attention, and that they had new and additional facts which should be brought to the attention of the court. An order on the defendants was passed to show cause why the relief prayed should not be granted. Five weeks later the petition was dismissed, and an appeal taken to this court, both appeals, 29 and 30, being in one record. No authority was cited by the appellants to support their right to such a petition.

The appellants in No. 30 could have been parties to the appeal tothe City Court taken by Mrs. Roach in No. 29, and having failed to...