Magruder v. State Roads Commission

94 A. 153, 125 Md. 525, 1915 Md. LEXIS 234
CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
DecidedMay 7, 1915
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 94 A. 153 (Magruder v. State Roads Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Magruder v. State Roads Commission, 94 A. 153, 125 Md. 525, 1915 Md. LEXIS 234 (Md. 1915).

Opinion

*526 Boyd, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The appellants, some of whom are taxpayers of Prince George’s County and others of Anne Arundel County, filed a bill for in injunction against the members of the State Roads Commission, (a) to restrain them from expending any portion of the Road Loans Fund provided for by Chapter 267 of the Acts of 1914, allowed to Prince George’s County, upon the road from Meadows to Camp Springs, or upon any other road not a part of a main gap of the State Roads system selected by the State Roads Commission in 1909, etc.; and (b) praying that a mandatory injunction may also be issued at once compelling the defendants to apply the amount of $74,536, the balance claimed to be in hand for road construction in Prince George’s County, only upon what is called the “Old Stage Road.” After an answer was filed and testimony taken, the Court below passed a decree dismissing the bill, and from that decree this appeal was taken.

Chapter 141 of the Acts of 190S, which created the State Roads Commission, provided for “the establishment of a •system of public roads and highways, in Maryland.” It directed in section 32H (now sec. 40 of Art. 91 of the Code of 1912) that “The general system of public roads herein-before provided for in this Act shall be completed as soon as may be feasible by the said Commission, the time for the completion thereof, not to exceed, however, seven years from 1st day of July, 1908; and the aggregate and total expenditures of the said Commission for said purposes shall not exceed the sum of five million dollars ($5,000,000), of which sum not more than one million dollars ($1,000,000) shall be expendid in any one year*, accounting from said 1st day of July, 1908.” It is manifest that when that Act was passed the stupendous undertaking in which the State was engaging was not fully realized, as at each session since then the Legislature has been called upon to pass laws on the subject and make additional appropriations. State Road Loans have been authorized since 1908 as follows: $1,000,000 in 1910, $3,170,000 in 1912 and $6,600,000 in 1914, or *527 $10,770,000 since the original Act, in addition to smaller snms appropriated for the State Road purposes. In considering the Act of 1908 we must therefore remember that it was then providing for a system, the cost of which was not to exceed $5,000,000, while now there has been spent and authorized over three times that amount, and there is not yet sufficient to complete the system as originally contemplated and shown by the maps filed under the provisions of section 3233 of the original Act, which is as follows: “The said Commission, in addition to the powers hereinbefore mentioned, shall have full power and be charged with the full duties to select, construct, improve and maintain such a general system of improved State roads and highways as can reasonably be expected to be completed with the funds herein provided in and through all the counties of this State. The-said Commission shall reach its conclusions as to the selection of the roads to be improved on or before May 1, 1909, and shall on or before that date'file with the County Commissioners of each county for public inspection a certified copy of a map of the State showing plainly thereon the adopted system of main roads to be improved under this Act, which map shall bear the written approval of the said Commission.”

If it was supposed that the “general system of improved State roads and highways” could thus “reasonably be expected to be completed with the funds” therein provided “in and through all the counties of this State,” those m airing the estimate fell far short of what it would require. Certain it is that all of the roads selected in Prince George’s County, for example, could not have been built with improved material with the amount appropriated before May 1st, 1909, when the map was required to be filed, and had not the State Roads Commission had very great discretion vested in it the construction would probably not have been commenced without further legislation. That Commission had to determine which of the various roads they had selected for improvement should be improved, and it could not then have *528 been contended that the Court could require the. Commission to improve the “Old Stage Eoad” first, or second, or in any particular order. There is nothing in the selection of the five roads selected, and hereinafter mentioned, designating the order in which they should respectively be improved.

But it is contended on behalf of the appellants that Chapter 267 of the Acts of 1914, which appropriated $5,000,000 to the counties and $1,600,000 to building a bridge over the Patapsco Eiver from Baltimore City to Brooklyn, and the balance, if any, to the streets of Baltimore City, contains a provision which does require the money to be applied to the “Old Stage Eoad” in preference to the two contemplated by the Commission which are now objected to. The said sum of five million dollars was by section 8 of Act of 1914 appropriated to the several counties by regular appropriation on county road mileage basis (as the original Act did) and by special appropriations. By it Prince George’s was entitled to $108,800 on the mileage basis and $116,200 as special appropriation, making $225,000 in all. Following the various appropriations to the counties is this provision: “That the five million dollars ($5,000,000) provided for the counties shall be expended in paying for the work already done in counties in excess of previous allotments, in finishing the work now under construction and not completed, and shall then be applied, first, to filling in the main gaps of the system, and that the balance remaining thereafter shall be applied to secondary gaps for necessary bridges, for rights of way, for over-head expenses, for the construction and maintenance of the Washington Boulevard, ($50,000), and for other miscellaneous purposes.”

About $57,000 of the $225,000 was used in paying for woi’k which had been done in that county prior to the Act of 1914, in excess of previous allotments, so that only about $168,000 was available at the beginning of the operations in 1914. Five routes were determined upon prior to May 1st, 1909, in accordance with the Act of 1908. The following resolution was adopted by the Commission on October 5th, *529 1908: “Final location of roads in Prince George’s County. Dr. Remsen moved that the road to he selected as a State Road in Prince George’s County shall start from the Charles County line, near Matta woman by way of T. B., Clinton, Camp Springs, Silver Hill to the District Line; from the District Line by way of the Washington-Marlboro Pike to Oakland, Forestville, Meadows to Marlboro; from the District Line over the Central Avenue road to Seat Pleasant to Hall Station to the Patuxent River near Hardesty, by the most direct route; from Bladensburg on the Washington Boulevard by the way of Buena Vista, Oollington to Priest’s Bridge, and from a point near Camp Springs, on the road from Charles County to the Distinct Line, to Meadows, on the Washington and Marlboro Turnpike, or as much thereof as the funds will permit. The motion was seconded by Governor Crothers, and adopted.” In the answer, those roads are named, and as the evidence refers to them as there numbered it will be convenient to quote from the answer:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Williams v. Fitzhugh
128 A. 137 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1925)
Fisher & Carozza Bros. v. MacKall
114 A. 580 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1921)
State Ex Rel. Watkins v. Rich
95 A. 956 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1915)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
94 A. 153, 125 Md. 525, 1915 Md. LEXIS 234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/magruder-v-state-roads-commission-md-1915.