Tanner v. McKeldin

• Citation: 202 Md. 569,97 A.2d 449
• Decision Date: 12 June 1953
• Docket Number: No. 171,171
• Parties: TANNER et al. v. McKELDIN, Governor, et al.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland

Page 569

202 Md. 569

97 A.2d 449

TANNER et al. v. McKELDIN, Governor, et al.

No. 171.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

June 12, 1953.

Edward D. Storm and Samuel W. Barrick, Frederick, for appellants.

Francis D. Murnaghan, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. (Edward D. E. Rollins, Atty. Gen., and Walter E. Sinn, Frederick, for Board of County Com'rs, Frederick County and others; Murray H. Fout, Frederick, for Board of Sup'rs of Elections, on the brief), for appellees.

Before SOBELOFF, C. J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS and HENDERSON, JJ.

DELAPLAINE, Judge.

Herbert G. Tanner, Clark E. Cottrell, Arnold G. Wedum and Elwood K. Wolfe, residents of Camp Detrick, a Federal reservation in Frederick County, and civilian employees of the Federal Government, filed this action against Theodore R. McKeldin, Governor of Maryland, J. Millard Tawes, Comptroller of the Treasury, Thomas B. R. Mudd, Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, and the County Commissioners, County Treasurer, Register of Wills and Supervisors of Elections of Frederick County, to obtain a declaratory decree determining the status, rights and obligations of complainants under the laws of Maryland.

The bill of complaint contains the following allegations:

(1) The Legislature of Maryland, by Chapter 59 of the Laws of 1950, which took effect upon its approval by Governor Lane on March 28, 1950, gave the consent of the State of Maryland to the acquisition by the United States of the land used by Camp Detrick and ceded exclusive jurisdiction over the land to the United States for all purposes except that the State retains the right to serve thereon all civil and criminal process of the courts of this State. On May 5, 1950, the Governor received notice from the Secretary of the Army that the United States accepted jurisdiction over the land.

(2) Tanner has resided at Camp Detrick since May, 1943; Wedum from May, 1946, until August, 1947, and since February, 1951; Cottrell from April, 1949, until July, 1949, and since January, 1950; Wolfe since April, 1951. Tanner and Wedum registered as voters in Frederick County in October, 1948, but they have been advised that their votes might be challenged on the ground that they have not been residents of Maryland since the Camp Detrick land was acquired by the United States. Cottrell and Wolfe made application to register, but their applications were denied by the Supervisors of Elections.

(3) Tanner, Wedum and Wolfe have paid income taxes imposed by the State, but paid them under protest because they believe that if they are not allowed to vote and have representation in the State government, the State should not be allowed to tax them. Cottrell paid State income taxes before he was denied the right to register, and thereafter, acting upon the advice of counsel, he refused to pay such taxes.

(4) Complainants have been required by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles to register their motor vehicles in Maryland, and to pay the tax imposed by Maryland on the issuance of certificates of title for motor vehicles, while nonresidents are excused from that tax.

(5) Those complainants who own dogs have been required to obtain dog licenses from the County Treasurer, although the dogs are kept at Camp Detrick.

(6) Complainants have been paying the State sales tax. If they are not residents of Maryland, they ought to be excused, like other nonresidents, from taxes on sales of property purchased in Maryland and delivered by mail or common carrier to the purchasers at Camp Detrick.

(7) It is not certain whether complainants should be considered as residents of Maryland within the meaning of the Maryland inheritance tax statute, the Maryland estate tax statute, and various other laws.

The bill prays for a decree declaring the status, rights and obligations of complainants in reference to the following matters: (1) registration and voting in County and State elections; (2) registration and voting in Presidential elections; (3) State income tax; (4) registration of motor vehicles; (5) tax on issuance of certificates of title for motor vehicles; (6) dog licenses; (7) probate and testamentary law; (8) inheritance and estate taxes; (9) civil suits in Frederick County; (10) nonresident attachment suits; (11) limitations of actions; (12) distribution of motor vehicle revenues to Frederick County; (13) distribution of income taxes to Frederick County; (14) eligibility for the office of notary public; (15) guardians and committees and treatment of insane in public institutions; eligibility for old age assistance and medical aid for indigent persons; and (16) sales taxes on property purchased in Maryland and delivered by mail or common carrier to the purchasers at Camp Detrick.

Defendants demurred to the bill, and the Court sustained the demurrers. From that order complainants appealed to this Court. An order sustaining a demurrer to an entire bill of complaint in equity is appealable, although no final order dismissing the bill has been entered. Karger v. Stead, 192 Md. 230, 64 A.2d 155.

Soon after the enactment of the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, Laws 1939, ch. 294, the Court of Appeals held that a declaratory judgment proceeding was not appropriate where there existed an immediate cause of action between the parties for which one of the common remedies at law or in equity was adequate and available. Porcelain Enamel & Mfg. Co. v. Jeffrey Mfg. Co., 177 Md. 677, 11 A.2d 451; Caroline Street Permanent Bldg. Ass'n No. 1 v. Sohn, 178 Md. 434, 13 A.2d 616; Morgan v. Dietrich, 179 Md. 199, 16 A.2d 916. In 1945 the Legislature, declaring that the real intention of the Act was that the existence of another adequate remedy at law or in equity should not preclude a judgment for declaratory relief, amended the Act to express that intention clearly and unmistakably. Laws 1945, ch. 724.

The Act as amended in 1945 and codified in Code 1951, art. 31A, sec. 6, provides as follows 'Relief by declaratory judgment or decree may be granted in all civil cases in which an actual controversy exists between contending parties, or in which the court is satisfied that antagonistic claims are present between the parties involved which indicate imminent and inevitable litigation, or when in any such case the court is satisfied that a party asserts a legal relation, status, right, or privilege in which he has a concrete interest and that there is a challenge or denial of such asserted relation, status, right, or privilege by an adversary party who also has or asserts a concrete interest therein, and the court is satisfied also that a declaratory judgment or decree shall serve to terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the proceedings. When, however, a statute provides a special form of remedy for a specific type of case, that statutory remedy must be followed; but the mere fact that an actual or threatened controversy is susceptible of relief through a general common law remedy, or an equitable remedy, or an extraordinary legal remedy, whether such remedy is recognized or regulated by statute or not, shall not debar a party from the privilege of obtaining a declaratory judgment or decree in any case in which the other essentials to such relief are present; but proceeding by declaratory judgment shall not be permitted in any case in which divorce or annulment of marriage is sought. The Court may order a speedy hearing of an action for a declaratory judgment, and may advance it on the calendar.'

It is clear that the Declaratory Judgments Act may be invoked when the plaintiff asserts rights which are challenged by the defendant and also presents for decision an actual controversy to which he is a party and which is capable of final adjudication by the judgment or decree to be rendered. The Act confers authority upon the court to enter a declaratory judgment or decree when the plaintiff claims a legal relation, status, right, or privilege in which he has a concrete interest, and there is a denial thereof by the defendant who also has or asserts a concrete interest therein. Ackerman v. Union & New Haven Trust Co., 91 Conn. 500, 100 A. 22, 24; Petition of Kariher, 284 Pa. 455, 131 A. 265, 271; Washington-Detroit Theatre Co. v. Moore, 249 Mich. 673, 229 N.W. 618, 68 A.L.R. 105; Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. v. Wallace, 288 U.S. 249, 53 S.Ct. 345, 347, 77 L.Ed. 730, 87 A.L.R. 1191.

From the language in Section 6 that a declaratory judgment or decree may be granted when the court is satisfied that it will terminate the uncertainty or controversy, it is clear that the exercise of declaratory jurisdiction is within the sound discretion of the court. However, it is mandatory that the court shall comply with the statutory...