Masson v. Reindollar

⁶⁸⁶ Delaplaine, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This suit for injunction was brought by Charles A. Masson, a citizen and taxpayer of the City of Baltimore, to restrain the members of the State Roads Commission from awarding any contracts for construction of a bridge across the Chesapeake Bay until the cost of constructing a tunnel can be determined by bids, and to order the Commission to advertise for bids for construction of a tunnel. The bill of complaint alleges that the Commission, after employing J. E. Greiner Company as consulting engineers on the bridge construction, employed Palmer & Baker and Ole Singstad, subaqueous vehicular tunnel engineers at a cost of $100,000 to report on the cost of constructing a tunnel. The consulting engineers estimated that a bridge could be built for $26,687,000, not including contingencies.

The tunnel engineers estimated that the cost of a tunnel would be $34,097,000, and added contingencies in the sum of $2,903,000, thus raising the total to $37,000,000. The consulting engineers, after examining the estimate of the tunnel engineers, added contingencies in the amount of $2,727,000, making the total cost $39,727,000. At a hearing before the Commission in August, 1948, the tunnel engineers protested that, in view of their wide experience as sub-aqueous tunnel contractors and the very limited experience of Greiner Company in tunnel construction, the addition of $2,727,000 for contingencies was unwarranted. The bill then alleges that the Commission, upon the recommendation of the State Highway Advisory Council, appointed by the Governor of Maryland to assist and advise the Commission on the Chesapeake Bay project, decided to construct a bridge, but was influenced in making the decision by the fact that Greiner Company estimated that the cost of a bridge, not including contingencies, would be $7,410,000 less than the cost of a tunnel, not including contingencies.

The bill then alleges that it is apparent from bids, which have been received by the Commission, that the ⁶⁸⁷ bridge cannot be built for $26,687,000, as estimated by Greiner Company, but that it would cost $34,000,000, not including contingencies for overages caused by mistakes in the estimates of quantities of materials, and there would be the further cost of $3,000,000 for four islands in the Bay, a toll house and a lighting system. The bill alleges that since there is no evidence that the construction of a tunnel would exceed $34,097,000, not including contingencies, and since the estimate was made by tunnel engineers of wide experience, the Commission ought to ask for bids on a tunnel as well as a bridge. It is also alleged that the tunnel engineers estimated that the operating costs of a tunnel would be $220,000 a year, and Greiner Company arbitrarily raised this figure to $286,000 without any explanation. The bill further alleges that, while the estimate of the cost of a tunnel was made by engineers of outstanding ability, it is obvious that the estimate of the consulting engineers, upon which the Commission relied, was not reliable, and the contemplated bridge will actually cost several million dollars more than a tunnel.

The bill alleges that the Commission acted upon false and misleading data, and while great weight should be given to the comparative cost of each type of crossing, the Commission and the Governor have refused to advertise for bids for the construction of a tunnel, and have announced that contracts for the construction of a bridge will be awarded September 2, 1949. The bill charges that the Commission is preparing to expend large sums of money which will waste the funds from the sale of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Bonds, and the decision to build a bridge without getting bids on the cost of constructing a tunnel is arbitrary and unlawful. The members of the Commission demurred to the bill, and the chancellor sustained their demurrer without leave to amend. From that decree, which has the effect of dismissing the bill, complainant appealed to this Court.

It has long been recognized that a taxpayer may invoke the aid of a court of equity to restrain the action of a ⁶⁸⁸ municipal corporation or an administrative agency when such action is ultra vires or illegal and may injuriously affect the taxpayer’s rights and property. St. Mary’s Industrial School for Boys v. Brown, 45 Md. 310, 326 ; Kelly v. City of Baltimore, 53 Md. 134, 139 ; Williams v. City of Baltimore, 128 Md. 140, 158 , 97 A. 140 ; Baltimore Retail Liquor Package Stores Ass’n v. Kerngood, 171 Md. 426 , 189 A. 209 , 109 A. L. R. 1253; Matthaei v. Housing Authority of Baltimore City, 177 Md. 506, 510 , 9 A. 2d 835 ; Castle Farms Dairy Stores v. Lexington Market Authority, 193 Md. 472 , 67 A. 2d 490, 493 . Complainant, in his capacity as a taxpayer, was entitled to enter suit against the State Roads Commission to restrain any unlawful project which might cause him injury. From the beginning of the modern system of State road construction and maintenance, the policy of the State has been to establish and maintain an adequate system of highways adapted