Creaghah v. Mayor of Baltimore

Citations

• 132 Md. 442

Syllabus

<p>Municipal ordinances: injunctions to restrain; interest of complainant. Millc ordinance of Baltimore City: not delegation of legislative authority.</p> <p>The enforcement of a void ordinance may he enjoined at the instance of any party whose interests will he affected by its execution.</p> <p>An ordinance may be valid in part and void in part, even where two parts are contained in one section, provided that the valid part is independent of and severable from the part which is void.</p> <p>Where an ordinance contains many sections and provisions, a bill of complaint seeking to have it declared null and void and its execution enjoined should point out those sections and provisions which are claimed to be unconstitutional, with sufficient averments to show that the complainant’s interests would be injuriously affected by their enforcement.</p> <p>Ordinance Ho. 262 of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, of June 1, 1917, regulating the sale of milk, etc., was passed under the exercise of the police power expressly conferred by the City Charter (Acts of 1898, Chapter 123)</p> <p>The preservation of the health and safety of the inhabitants is one of the chief purposes of local governments, and reasonable laws in relation thereto are usually within their incidental authortiy.</p> <p>Tins ordinance does not attempt to delegate legislative power to the Commissioner of Health, but authorizes him to exact compliance with the provisions thereof and with such regulations as he may adopt for their enforcement, and gives him only such discretion as is necessary to prevent the sale of impure milk in the City of Baltimore.</p> <p>The averment that owing to war conditions and scarcity of labor the plaintiffs were unable, within the time allowed by the ordinance, to make the required changes in their dairies, etc., was held no ground for enjoining the enforcement of an ordinance deemed necessary to preserve public health.</p>