Whittle v. Munshower

Henderson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant filed a petition for a writ of mandamus against the Superintendent of the Maryland State Police, to which a demurrer was filed. The court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, but the record does not show the entry of any final judgment. For this reason, the appeal must be dismissed as premature.

See Surrey Inn, Inc. v. Jennings, 215 Md. 446, 455 ; Martin G. Imbach, Inc. v. Dee ²⁶⁰ gan, 208 Md. 115, 119 ; Penny v. Md. State Police, 186 Md. 10 ; and cases therein cited. In Walter v. Montgomery County, 179 Md. 665 and Watts v. Port Deposit, 46 Md. 500 , the rule as to the necessity of a final judgment at law before an appeal will lie, was expressly applied to petitions for mandamus. We note, however, that in the Penny case, supra, and the Walter case, supra, this Court nevertheless took occasion to express an opinion on the merits. We are disposed to do so in the instant case, rather than to follow the procedure adopted in the Imbach case, supra.

The petition alleged that Edgar Whittle, of whose estate the petitioner, Hiram Whittle, had been appointed administrator, died on July 7, 1942 “as a result of a conspiracy against him.” It alleged that Edgar Whittle had been employed by the Glenn L. Martin Company in Baltimore County for about three months prior to his death and was falsely accused by employees of the company of “having made a defective piece of material”, and that this charge “led to” his death. The petition alleges that “Information indicates that the Maryland State Police have information that will show that Edgar Whittle was officially charged with having made the defective piece of material * * * [and] information that will help to clear Edgar Whittle of this false accusation and charge * * *. Petitioners seek to obtain this information in order to clear the name of Edgar Whittle and to protect Hiram Whittle.” The prayer of the petition was that the Superintendent “release to your Petitioners all information in the possession of the Maryland State Police * * * concerning criminal charges that have been made against Edgar Whittle”. It is perfectly clear that a person applying for a writ of mandamus against a public official must show a clear legal right in himself and a corresponding imperative duty on the part of the defendant.

Jones v. House of Reformation, 176 Md. 43, 51 , and cases cited; Buchholtz v.