Town of District Heights v. County Commissioners

Delaplaine, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. On October 31, 1955, the Mayor and Town Council oi the Town of District Heights, a municipal corporation of the State of Maryland, filed a petition in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County praying for a writ of mandamus to compel the County Commissioners of Prince George’s ¹⁴⁴ County to recpnsider the 1955 distribution of funds received by the County Commissioners from the Maryland Racing Commission, and to pay to the town its just and proportionate share of the funds computed on the basis of “the best and most reliable figures available.” The allegations in the petition are in substance as follows: (1) Under the Maryland Racing Commission Act, Code 1951, art. 78B, sec. 19, the several Counties of the State are entitled to a proportionate share of certain revenues collected by the Racing Commission, allocated on the basis of population “according to the latest available Federal census.” (2) The Act provides that from the funds allocated to each County, the County Commissioners shall allocate and pay to each incorporated town in the County a share of such funds in the ratio which the population of the town, “figured on the best and most reliable figures available in the opinion of the County Commissioners,” bears to the total population of the County, provided that the town qualifies by meeting the conditions specified in the Act; and the Town of District Heights qualifies under the Act. (3) The County Commissioners unreasonably, illegally, arbitrarily, and in violation of their duty, failed to allocate and pay to District Heights, its proportionate share of the funds from the Racing Commission for the year 1955, as they did not allocate and pay the funds “figured on the best and most reliable figures available,” but allocated and paid the funds on the basis of the 1950 Federal Census. (4) The County Commissioners used the 1950 Census figures because those figures provided a simple and expedient basis for the distribution without reference to the proportionate population of the towns of the County in 1955; and the decision to use the Census figures was based on the opinion of Carl Mace, County Comptroller, and not on the opinion of the County Commissioners.

(5) There are available to the County Commissioners better and more reliable figures of the population of the ¹⁴⁵ County and its incorporated towns, namely, but not restricted to, the 1955 Census Tract prepared by the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission. (6) Since 1950 the population of Prince George’s County has increased from 194,182, according to the 1950 Census, to an estimated 282,374 in April, 1955; and the distribution of the increased population of the incorporated towns has not been uniformly proportionate, and thus they did not have the same ratio of population to the total population of the County in 1955 as they had in 1950. (7) Between 1950 and 1955 the population of District Heights more than doubled. The Commissioners allocated to it only $2,233.64, which was less than half the amount to which it was entitled.

The County Commissioners demurred to the petition. They alleged as grounds of the demurrer: (1) that the Racing Commission Act authorizes them to distribute the funds to each incorporated town in the ratio which its population bears to the total population of the County, figured on the best and most reliable figures available “in the opinion of the County Commissioners,” and thus the Commissioners have full discretion as to what figures to use; (2) that mandamus will not lie to control any discretionary power; and (3) that the Commissioners disbursed the funds on the basis of the 1950 Census, which was the same basis used by the State in making its apportionment to the County; and there is no legal duty on the part of the Commissioners to disburse to the towns on the basis of the Census Tract prepared by the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission. The Court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, and ordered the costs to be paid by petitioners. From that judgment petitioners appealed to this Court.

The Legislature has prescribed the procedure to be followed upon applications for mandamus. The statute expressly provides that upon the filing of a petition for mandamus, the court or judge to whom the same is addressed shall lay a rule requiring the defendant to show cause why a writ of man ¹⁴⁶ damus should not issue as prayed; and the defendant, by the day named in the order, shall file an answer to the petition, fully setting forth all the defenses upon which he intends to rely in resisting the application, which shall be verified by his affidavit. Laws 1858, ch. 285,