This is а petition for a declaratory judgment on the validity of Chapter 296 of the Public Laws of 1969 and, if appropriate, in-junctive relief. A preliminary injunction was ordered. A motion by the New England Milk Producers Association to intervene was grаnted. By agreement of the parties the case was reported upon statement of facts.
The referеnce Public Law is “An Act Creating the Maine Milk Dealers Bonding Law,” (Act) the substance of which is to require a milk dealer purchasing, for resale or manufacture, milk in excess of 250 quarts daily, to be licensed, to file a bond in an amount of l-i/£ times thе value of the total amount of milk “received or purchased by such dealer during his calender month of largest vоlume of the year preceding the date of application” to guarantee payment to his suppliеrs not less than semi-monthly and be exposed to penalty for operating without such license. The constitutionality оf this measure is attacked.
The act is the fourth of its nature, two previous measures having been declared unconstitutional by litigation, and the provisions of a proposed third questioned as *637 to constitutionality by an Opinion of the Justices, resulting in non-enactment.
The following tabulation indicates the similarity of these several measures:
Terms P.L. 1915 1 Chap. 32 P.L. 1933 2 Chap. 210 L.D. 1345 3 1961 P.L. 1969 Chap. 296
Applicable to Purchasers of Milk for resale Milk Gathering Stations Licensees Dealers 4
License required X X
Semi-monthly payment to producers X X X
Security bond $2,000. 5 $2,000. 6 $100. up 7
Exemption 8 X X
Penalty for non-license X X
The 1915 Act was held to be unconstitutional as class legislation and violative of the “equal protection” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to thе Constitution of the United States in State v. Latham,
The 1933 Act was held to be unconstitutional for the same reasons in State v. Old Tаvern Farm, Inc.,
The provisions of the 1961 Legislative Document, in response to three questions from the Legislature, were analogized to the 1915 and 1933 Acts, and without rendering opinions as to 1) its validity as an exercise of police pоwer, or 2) whether it constituted class legislation, or 3) whether it unconstitutionally impaired the obligation of contraсt, the Justices held that the constitutional issues should be decided in adversary litigation. Opinion of the Justices,
From the table above it is adequately disclosed that the 1969 Act embodies in all pertinent respects the provisions of the 1915 and 1933 Public Laws and the provisions proposed in the 1961 Legislative *638 Document. There were differences in the charаcterization of the milk purveyor to whom the Acts applied “Purchaser for Resale” (1915); “Milk Gathering Station” (1961); “Dealеr” (1969); and in the amounts of the bonds required to guarantee payment to the producers.
The threshold and determinative question, — is whether the doctrine of
stare de-cisis
is to be applied. Plaintiff urges that the decision of
Latham
and
Old Tavern, supra,
control and the defendant urges that those decisions should be overruled, not bеcause the doctrine is inapplicable but that public interest requires it, — and the fact that those cases stand for a minority view. See Opinion of the Justices, supra, 157 Me., at page 157,
This doctrine embodies a judicial poliсy that a “determination of a point of law by a court will generally be followed by a court of the same * * * rank if а subsequent case presents the same legal problem although different parties are involved in the subsequent сase.” 20 Am. Jur.2d., Courts § 183. “The rationale behind the policy is the need to promote certainty, stability, and predictability of the law.” Same § 184. See Jordan v. McKenzie,
The validity of statutory security bonding provisions as applied to the milk industry in substantially identical form has been twice considered with the same result, by a unanimous court in
Latham
and a majority court in
Old Tavern.
A decision by a divided court, according to “the prevailing view * * * does not by this lack of unanimity lose its character as a precedent within the sсope of stare decisis.” 20 Am.Jur.2d Courts § 195, Ullmann v. United States,
Conversely, we recognize the doctrine is not an insuperable barrier to reconsideration of prior decisions where adequate cause is shown and impelling changing сonditions exist. See Prior v. State, Me.,
It is conceded that the milk industry is one of special problems, is of public interеst and that appropriate legislative action within the State’s police power is constitutionally sound. It hаs been so recognized and declared in Maine Milk Commission v. Cumberland Farms Northern, Inc.,
In the case beforе us, however, there is nothing to indicate that the applicability of the 1969 Act to the milk industry is different than that considered in Latham and Old Tavern, supra. The milk control law held good, in Cumberland Farms, supra, functions toward the end of providing an adequate supply of milk, supported by a price which permits the enforcement of regulatory requirements of sanitation in production and distribution, toward which it has not been demonstrated that the proposed bonding law bears any relation. We have nothing to show that the public interest in our milk industry has been prejudiced by misplacement of credit.
Latham and Old Tavern, supra, control the present case and it becomes unnecessary to deal with the “impairment of contract” issue. For the reasons given in Latham and Old Tavern, supra, and recognized in the Opinion of the Justices, it is hеld that the 1969 Act is unconstitutional and a permanent injunction against its operation is in order.
So ordered.
Notes
. R.S.1916 Chapter 37 § 27.
. Repealed by revision of 1944, p. 2240.
. Propose amendment to Chapter 33 R.S. 1954 (Maine Commission) providing for semi-monthly payment to producer upon risk of suspension or loss of license. Not enacted. Licensees refer to those licensed by the Milk Commission.
. All of which are by definition in the same category.
. Subject to increase if inadequate. Amount of initial bond reduced to $500.00 by Chapter 283 P.L.1933 (Special Session, December 1933).
. Subject to increase if inadequate.
. In an amount 114 times the value оf the milk received or purchased during the calendar month of largest volume during the year preceding date of appication.
. Those receiving or purchasing no more than 250 quarts of milk daily.