Summary
In Psalmist Baptist Church, et al. v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 175 Md. 7, the appellants, a month after the Baltimore City Court decided a zoning case, filed a petition in that court to reopen the case on the allegation that they had new and additional facts which should be brought to the court's attention.
Summary of this case from Nyburg v. SolmsonOpinion
[No. 30, April Term, 1938.]
Decided June 14th, 1938.
Res Judicata — Persons Not Parties — New Trial.
Persons who could have been parties to an appeal, from the Board of Zoning Appeals of Baltimore City to the City Court, involving the right to enlarge an ice plant, but failed to participate therein, were bound by the decision. pp. 8, 9
A petition, by parties who were bound by the decision on an appeal from the Board of Zoning Appeals, though not parties to the appeal, to reopen the case, was no more than a motion for a new trial, which is not appealable. p. 9
Decided June 14th, 1938.
Appeal from the Baltimore City Court (STANTON, J.).
Petition by the Psalmist Baptist Church and the Mt. Olivet Baptist Church to reopen proceedings by which the order of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Baltimore City, granting a permit for the enlargement of an ice plant to Louis Shane and wife, was affirmed. From an order dismissing the petition, the petitioners appeal. Appeal dismissed.
The cause was argued before BOND, C.J., URNER, OFFUTT, PARKE, SLOAN, MITCHELL, SHEHAN, and JOHNSON, JJ.
Ernest Fadum, with whom was Josiah F. Henry, Jr., on the brief, for the appellants.
Meyer Reamer, with whom was William Curran on the brief, for Louis Shane and wife, appellees.
J. Francis Ireton, Assistant City Solicitor, with whom was R.E. Lee Marshall, City Solicitor, for the Board of Zoning Appeals.
One month from the day No. 29, Roach v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 175 Md. 1, 199 A. 812, was decided by the City Court, the Psalmist Baptist Church and Mount Olivet Church of Baltimore, two churches located in the zone affected by the proceedings in that case, filed a petition to the court to reopen the case, saying that the case had just come to their attention, and that they had new and additional facts which should be brought to the attention of the court. An order on the defendants was passed to show cause why the relief prayed should not be granted. Five weeks later the petition was dismissed, and an appeal taken to this court, both appeals, 29 and 30, being in one record. No authority was cited by the appellants to support their right to such a petition.
The appellants in No. 30 could have been parties to the appeal to the City Court taken by Mrs. Roach in No. 29, and, having failed to participate in that case, their rights are precluded and they are bound by the decision in that case, and on the appeal in her case. Holt v. Moxley, 157 Md. 619, 147 A. 596.
Assuming that the two churches could have been parties to the appeal to the City Court, the position taken by them in their petition could be no better than if they had been parties on the appeal to that court, and their petition is no more than a motion for a new trial, which is not appealable. 1 Poe, Pl. Pr., sec. 349.
Appeal in No. 30 dismissed, with costs.