Opinion ID: 1538681
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Facilities in Garrett County and West Virginia

Text: It is suggested that because a part of the facilities here involved are to be located across the Potomac River in West Virginia and because the coal washing facility to be erected is to be placed in Garrett County, that these bond proceeds may not be used. Grinnell Co. v. City of Crisfield, 264 Md. 552, 287 A.2d 486 (1972), arose under an earlier version of this same statute. When it was there contended that since the Rubberset plant was located outside of the City limits of Crisfield, the City [might] not claim that the plant addition served a public purpose for that City, Judge Finan observed for this Court that the appellant had placed too strict a construction on what [might] be a valid public purpose for a city under the Act. He further said: The applicable provisions of [the Act] contain no such geographic limitation on the location of a project and we feel that to judicially draft one would be contrary to the intent of the legislature, since the stated purpose of the statute is not only to encourage the increase of industry, but also to relieve conditions of unemployment. It is, we believe, entirely likely that persons residing within the City limits of Crisfield will seek employment outside of those limits, within the immediate vicinity of the community and probably at the Rubberset plant. Id. at 559. In this case the trial judge, after referring to Grinnell, said: Similarly, in the present case Westvaco will enhance Maryland's public interest with its West Virginia and Garrett County equipment which will facilitate a cleaner environment for Maryland and Allegany County. The constitutional requirement of a public purpose is therefore served. In his treatise, Municipal Corporations, McQuillin supports the Court of Appeals' position in Grinnell. Discussing the public purpose doctrine, McQuillin says: `The fact that the indebtedness is to be incurred in connection with municipal improvements outside the territorial limits is immaterial. Thus, indebtedness may be incurred in the purchase of lands or the making of improvements outside the territorial limits of the municipality where it is for the common benefit and enjoyment of all the citizens of the municipality...' McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, Section 39.21 (1970). See also id. Section 43.33 (`[p]ublic improvements, including improvements outside the municipal limits, constitute a purpose for which municipal bonds may be issued'). His finding of fact was not clearly erroneous. Since there was no limitation of law applicable, that finding must stand. Rule 886. Decree affirmed; appellants to pay the costs.