Smith v. Standard Oil Co.

Adkins, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellants were plaintiffs in a bill for injunction tO' restrain the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey from building or using an automobile storage station and tanks-for the storage of oil or gasoline or sale thereof on the premises on the southeast comer of Cathedral and Eager Streets in the city of Baltimore, and to have the permits-therefor declared null and void; to have Ordinance No. Qliy2ooi Baltimore City, approved June 22, 1921, declared null and void; to restrain the Inspector of Buildings and the Mayor of Baltimore City from approving any permit to be' issued to erect, maintain or use such stations. The appellees, who were defendants below, are the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, the Mayor of Baltimore, the members of the Board of Estimates of Baltimore City and the-Inspector of Buildings of said city. It is alleged in the bill of complaint, among other things, that: ⁶³ “3.

The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, acting in pursuance of the police power conferred upon them by the Legislature of Maryland, enacted an Ordinance No. 858, approved April 15, 1923, amendatory of paragraph 12 of section 47, Ordinance No. 155, approved June 19, 1908, dealing with the same subject, wherein it was and is provided that certain classes of buildings, buildings to be used for certain purposes such as livery stables, junk shops, paint factories, breweries, distilleries and Various other classes of buildings, to be used for the carrying on of a business, injurious to the residents of any neighborhood in the city and including garages and automobile stations in which gasoline is supplied to the users of automobiles and to their automobiles, should be ‘limited as to location,’ and it was and is provided in paragraph 13 of said section, as amended by Ordinance Ho. 648, approved December 7, 1921, that ‘no permit shall be given by the inspector of buildings for the erection of any such buildings; nor shall any building not already used for any of the purposes specified in the preceding paragraph be converted or used for any of the said-purposes without the approval of the mayor, and, if such erection, conversion or use be approved by him, there shall be incorporated in the permit therefor such regulations regarding the location of said building as may be necessary, in the judgment of the mayor, to properly safeguard the interests of the public. Ho permit for such buildings or the conversion or use of same, shall be issued unless at least ten'days’ notice of the application therefor shall be published not less than four times in at least two daily newspapers in Baltimore City, and every such application shall be conspicuously posted upon the property and the application, accompanied by a sum sufficient to pay the cost of such notice and posting.” 'That: “4. It was, and is, the duty of the Mayor of Baltimore City, to exercise the powers conferred upon him by the ordinance above set forth, as amended, on ⁶⁴ behalf and solely on behalf of the health, safety, morals and welfare of the public and not to exercise such powers in such a manner as to conflict or interfere with the powers of the police commissioner of the City of Baltimore or in any manner to impede, obstruct, hinder or interfere with said police commissioner or any of his agents.” That: “5. The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore further acting in pursuance of the police power conferred upon them on June 22, 1921, enacted an ordinance, No. 611%, a duly certified copy of which ordinance is herewith filed as ‘Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 3,’ said ordinance being entitled: ‘An ordinance to repeal and reordain with amendments, section 75 of Art. 11 of the Baltimore City Code of 1906, title ‘Police Regulations and Prevention of Pires,’ sub-title ‘Inflammable and Explosive Materials,’ by authorizing an increase in the size of storage tanks for gasoline.’ “Said ordinance reading as follows: ‘Section 1.

Be it ordained by the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, That section 75 of Art. 11 of the Baltimore City Code of 1906, title ‘Police Regulations and Prevention of Pires,’ sub-title ‘Inflammable and Explosive Materials,’ be and the same is hereby repealed and reordained with amendments to read as follows:’ ” By the ordinance, “the Inspector of Buildings is authorized to grant a permit subject to the approval thereof by the Board of Estimates, to any person or persons, firm or corporation applying, to construct and maintain an automobile' storage station, in which naptha or gasoline may be stored by one of the following methods only: , (a) In an iron or steel tank of design and construction approved by the Inspector of Buildings, said tank to be buried underground at least two feet beneath the surface and the maximum amount stored therein shall not exceed one thousand (1,000) gallons, and more than one tank may be permitted upon the same premises.” ⁶⁵ There follows an alternative method not important here, and a further section providing that any permit granted in pursuance of the provisions of the ordinance may be revoked at any time by the Board of Estimates upon giving ninety days’ notice of such revocation to the holder of the permit. The concluding allegations of the bill are as follows: “8. The defendant, the Standard Oil Company, made its application on March 19th, 1924, and said application was approved by the Mayor and the permit was thereupon granted by the defendant, Charles H. Osborne, the inspector of buildings, in pursuance thereof under and by virtue of Ordinance No. 858 hereinbefore referred to. ‘‘On October 14, 1924, the defendant, the Standard Oil Company, made a further application in accordance with Ordinance Ho. 611%, hereinbefore set forth, to the defendant, Charles II. Osborne, the inspector of buildings, for permission to instal four I, 000 gallon gasoline tanks with pumps upon the said premises, known as 925 Cathedral street and to make certain other alterations and improvements thereon.

This application was approved by the defendants, Howard W. Jackson, Mayor of Baltimore City; R. Walter Graham, Howard Bryant, Philip B. Perlman and Bernard Jj. Orozier, constituting and acting as the Board of Estimates of Baltimore City, under the authority conferred upon them by the said Ordinance Ho. 611%, and thereupon on Hovember 7, 1924, the said defendant, Charles H. Osborne, the inspector of buildings, granted the permission requested in said application. Your orators aver and charge that this action on the part of the Board of Estimates in approving and on the part of the building inspector in granting tbe permission so requested is totally illegal and void, in that Ordinance No. 611% was passed in violation of section 221 of the Charter of Baltimore City (Revised Edition), which provides that ‘every ordinance enacted by the city shall embrace ⁶⁶ but, one subject, which shall be described in its title, * * and this ordinance is therefore null and void in so far as it purports to repeal the limitation, provided by its predecessor upon the number of tanks permitted upon any one premises, since such repeal is not in any way indicated in its title. “9. After both of the aforesaid permits were issued by the defendant, Charles H. Osborne, upon approval by the Mayor and the Board of Estimates, respectively, the defendant, the Standard Oil Company, promptly began and has continued the work of preparing the said premises known as 925 Cathedral street, for the installation and establishment of a gasoline service station or automobile filling station thereon. “10.

Further complaining, your orators show unto your Honor that your orators are informed and believe and do aver upon the information and belief that the defendant, the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, intends to build and construct upon said premises, 925 Cathedral street, in close proximity to the respective residences or other properties of your orators, as a part of the contemplated gasoline filling station, a number of tanks and to store therein large quantities of highly inflammable gasoline, the fumes of which, when mixed with air are apt to be highly explosive; and further that if this defendant is permitted to carry out its intention, the properties of your orators and the persons of those of your orators who dwell thereon will be exposed thereby to grave and increased danger of injury or destruction from fire and. explosion, or from either of these causes, and your orators will be greatly restricted in the reasonable use of these properties and these properties will be greatly diminished in value; your orators therefore charge that in view of the locality in which this gasoline is to be stored and the proximity of said tanks to the residences and other