Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

preme Court commonly accepts as conclu

sive.
[For other cases, see Courts, VII. c. 3, in
Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.]

[No. 202.]

for the First Appellate District, Division One, to review a decree which affirmed a decree of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, in that state, in favor of defendants in a suit to enjoin the destruction and re

Argued and submitted January 28, 1921. moval of a wooden building within the Decided February 28, 1921.

IN

IN ERROR to the District Court of Appeal of the State of California in and defiance of law in a place where it endangered surrounding buildings is the exercise of a police power, and not the forfeiture of property. Baumgartner v. Hasty, supra.

It is merely the enforcement of the law against those who defy the law. Klingler v. Bickel, 117 Pa. 326, 11 Atl. 555.

If by the terms of a city ordinance the city is empowered to inflict a fine upon a person erecting wooden buildings within the limits of the city, contrary to the terms of the ordinance, such power is not the only one which the city has, and it is lawful for it to remove such buildings in order to protect the public from the hazardous consequences of a continuance of such combustible matter in a dangerous position. Wadleigh v. Gilman, 12 Me. 403, 28 Am. Dec. 188.

An ordinance making wooden buildings erected within the fire limits nuisances, and enacting that they may be pulled down and abated as such, is within the terms of a charter prohibiting the erection of such buildings within the defined limits. Baxter v. Seattle, 3 Wash. 352, 28 Pac. 537.

So, too, under a city charter giving the mayor and common council "power to abate nuisances, public or private, and to pass all ordinances they might deem necessary for preserving the health, peace, good order and good government of the city, and to enforce all ordinances by them adopted not inconsistent with the laws of this state," an ordinance forbidding the erection of wooden or frame buildings on certain streets, and giving power to the marshal to remove the same, is valid and within the provisions of the charter. Ford v. Thralkill, 84 Ga. 169, 10 S. E. 600.

And a municipal corporation has power to require the removal of a wooden building located within its fire limits when it is damaged by fire to the extent of 30 per cent of its value, under charter authority to make regulations for the prevention of accident by fire, and to prohibit the erection within certain designated limits of buildings whose outer walls are not con

fire limits. Affirmed.

See same case below, 41 Cal. App. 596, 183 Pac. 303.

The facts are stated in the opinion. structed of brick, stone, or iron. Davison v. Walla Walla, 52 Wash. 453, 21 L.R.A. (N.S.) 454, 132 Am. St. Rep. 983, 100 Pac. 981.

But where the charter authorizes the city to ordain and establish such acts, laws, regulations, and ordinances not inconsistent with the Constitution or laws of the state as shall be needful for the government, order, and welfare of such body, an ordinance of a city establishing fire limits, and declaring wooden buildings erected within such limits to be nuisances, is invalid, no express power being conferred by either the charter or by statute to establish such limits and to declare such buildings nuisances, the clause in the charter not conferring power upon the city to abate and remove nuisances. Pye v. Peterson, 45 Tex. 312, 23 Am. Rep. 608.

Statutory provisions giving municipal corporations power to prescribe fire limits and direct the removal of buildings therein which may be damaged to a certain extent should receive a strict construction in favor of the owners of such buildings. Russell v. Fargo, 28 N. D. 300, 148 N. W. 610.

A city has power to provide by ordinance for the removal of frame buildings within the fire limits, which, because of their dilapidated condition, are a fire hazard and a nuisance. Defferari v. Galveston, Tex. Civ. App. -, 208 S. W.

188.

[ocr errors]

But where, as to buildings already erected within fire limits, there is granted power, when such buildings shall have experienced damage or decay to a certain extent, to direct that they shall be torn down and removed, the owners of the buildings must be given the first opportunity to remove them. Louisville v. Webster, 108 Ill. 414. The court distinguished between the power to tear down a building and to cause a building to be torn down and removed, stating that the power to direct implies that some person is to be directed to do this, and that the person contemplated was, in its opinion, the owner of the building.

Mr. J. F. Riley submitted the cause for plaintiffs in error:

The charter provision is not self-executing.

Boca & L. R. Co. v. Sierra Valleys R. Co. 2 Cal. App. 546, 84 Pac. 298; French v. Teschemaker, 24 Cal. 518; McHenry v. Downer, 116 Cal. 20, 45 L.R.A. 737, 47 Pac. 779; Older v. Superior Ct. 157 Cal. 770, 109 Pac. 478; Spinney v. Griffith, 98 Cal. 149, 32 Pac. 974; Ex parte Wall, 48 Cal. 279, 17 Am. Rep. 425.

Fire limits ordinances must be strictly construed.

The notice required by an ordinance establishing fire limits, to authorize the removal of a building in a summary way, is not for the exclusive benefit of the owners of the property, but is a condition precedent, to be strictly performed by the city before it or any of its officers are authorized to meddle with the property. Ward v. Murphysboro, 77 Ill. App. 549. Buildings erected in violation of an ordinance fixing fire limits may be removed summarily and without judicial proceedings. McKibbin v. Ft. Smith, 35 Ark. 352; Hine v. New Haven, 40 Conn. 478; King v. Davenport, 98 Ill. 305, 38 Am. Rep. 89; Miller v. Valparaiso, 10 Ind. App. 22, 37 N. E. 418; Baumgartner v. Hasty, 100 Ind. 575, 50 Am. Rep. 830; Lemmon v. Guthrie, 113 Iowa, 36, 86 Am. St. Rep. 361, 84 N. W. 986; Micks v. Mason, 145 Mich. 212, 11 L.R.A. (N.S.) 653, 108 N. W. 707, 9 Ann. Cas. 291; Eichenlaub v. St. Joseph, 113 Mo. 395, 18 L.R.A. 590, 21 S. W. 8; Davison v. Walla Walla, 52 Wash. 453, 21 L.R.A. (N.S.) 454, 132 Am. St. Rep. 983, 100 Pac. 981.

There is no more frequent or admittedly proper exercise of the police power than that of the prohibition of the erection of buildings and combustible materials in the populous part of a town; and the only means of making such prohibition effectual is by summary abatement. Every moment's delay in the removal of the nuisance is a constant exposure to danger. Before any judicial inquiry and hearing could be had in the matter, the whole evil sought to be guarded against might be produced. King v. Davenport, 98 Ill. 305, 38 Am. Rep. 89.

Police powers of this character are of a high order, and when a case arises should be speedily exercised. Delays incident to the ordinary processes of law would seriously impair their efficiency and could not be tolerated. Eichenlaub v. St. Joseph, 113 Mo. 395, 18 L.R.A. 590, 21 S. W. 8.

Montgomery v. Louisville & N. R. Co. 84 Ala. 127, 4 So. 626; 2 Dill. Mun. Corp. 5th ed. 1106; Morton v. Wessinger, 58 Or. 80, 113 Pac. 7.

The ordinances are discriminatory.

Ex parte Bohen, 115 Cal. 372, 36 L.R.A. 618, 47 Pac. 55; Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co. 184 U. S. 540, 46 L. ed. 679, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 431; Dobbins v. Los Angeles, 195 U. S. 223, 49 L. ed. 169, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 18; Hayes v. Missouri, 120 U. S. 68, 30 L. ed. 578, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 350; Hudson v. Thorne, 7 Paige, 261; Lakeview v. Tate, 130 Ill. 247, 6

If public authorities were compelled to give notice and await the action of courts or other bodies, the delay might result in public calamity. The right of self-preservation is one of the first laws of nature, and applies to organized societies as well as to individuals. Miller v. Valparaiso, 10 Ind. App. 22, 37 N. E. 418.

A municipal corporation having statutory authority to fix fire limits and direct the manner of constructing buildings within such limits in respect to protection against fire may, by ordinance, provide for the summary abatement of buildings erected within the fire limits which do not meet the requirements of the ordinance as to fireproof construction. Micks v. Mason, 145 Mich. 212, 11 L.R.A. (N.S.) 653, 108 N. W. 707, 9 Ann. Cas. 291.

So, too, under an ordinance making it the duty of a chief of police to remove any wooden building erected in violation of an ordinance establishing fire limits, a building so erected may be ordered removed without any prosecution or judicial proceedings of any kind against the owner of the building. McKibbin v. Ft. Smith, 35 Ark. 352.

An ordinance passed pursuant to the powers of a charter establishing a fire district, defining the limits thereof, and prohibiting the erection, enlargement, or elevation of any wooden building of any kind within such district, authorizing the removal thereof, and declaring the same a common nuisance, abatable by any per son or the mayor or the chief engineer of the fire department, or the fire marshal of a city, with the advice of the mayor, after giving reasonable notice, is reasonable and valid, and the court will refuse to grant an injunction staying the abatement of such nuisance. New Haven, 40 Conn. 478.

Hine v.

In Aronheimer v. Stokley, 11 Phila. 283, the court refused to restrain the action of the mayor in tearing down the plaintiff's shed and wooden buildings,

L.R.A. 268, 22 N. E. 791; Plymouth v. | Pl. Road Co. 43 Mich. 140, 5 N. W. 275; Schultheis, 135 Ind. 339, 35 N. E. 12; Hutton v. Camden, 39 N. J. L. 122, 23 Reagan v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 154 Am. Rep. 203; Jackson v. Miller, 69 N. U. S. 390, 38 L. ed. 1014, 4 Inters. Com. J. Eq. 182, 60 Atl. 1019; Morton v. WesRep. 560, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1047; Rich- singer, 59 Or. 80, 113 Pac. 7; Northern mond v. Dudley, 129 Ind. 112, 13 L.R.A. P. R. Co. v. Spokane, 52 Fed. 428; Re 587, 28 Am. St. Rep. 180, 28 N. E. 312; Yick Wo, 68 Cal. 294, 58 Am. Rep. 12, South & North Ala. R. Co. v. Railroad 9 Pac. 139. Commission, 171 Fed. 225; Standard Computing Scale Co. v. Farrell, 242 Fed. 87; State v. Deffes, 45 La. Ann. 658, 12 So. 841; State v. Dubarry, 44 La. Ann. 1117, 11 So. 718; State v. Tenant, 110 N. C. 609, 15 L.R.A. 423, 28 Am. St. Rep. 715, 14 S. E. 387; Tugman v. Chicago, 78 Ill. 405; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 30 L. ed. 220, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1064.

The ordinance under which the board | of public works acted takes vested rights without due process of law and without compensation.

Detroit v. Detroit & H. Pl. Road Co. 43 Mich. 140, 5 N. W. 275; Dobbins v. Los Angeles, 195 U. S. 223, 49 L. ed. 169, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 18; Morton v. Wessinger, 58 Or. 80, 113 Pac. 7; Mulligan v. Smith, 59 Cal. 230; Thompson v. San Francisco Super. Ct. 119 Cal. 543, 51 Pac. 863; Re Yick Wo, 68 Cal. 294, 58 Am. Rep. 12, 9 Pac. 139.

The ordinances impair obligations of contracts.

Buffalo v. Chadeayne, 134 N. Y. 163, 31 N. E. 443; Denver v. Mullen, 7 Colo. 345, 3 Pac. 693; Detroit v. Detroit & H. erected contrary to the provisions of the city ordinance, although there was no statute or ordinance clothing the mayor with power to summarily adjudge such buildings nuisances, and to proceed to abate them by tearing them down.

But where the resolution of a common council requiring its officers to prevent erection of wooden buildings within the fire limits gives no color of authority to destroy buildings for the construction of which a permit was obtained from the council, the city is without authority summarily to destroy a building erected after the passing of the resolution, but before the enactment of any ordinance covering the subject, under an agreement with the council that the building should not be maintained longer than nine months, and that it should be removed at any time upon ten days' notice that the city government required it. Northern P. R. Co. v. Spokane, 52 Fed. 428.

Municipal ordinances establishing fire limits cannot be retroactive and require the removal of existing buildings therein. Wadleigh v. Gilman, 12 Me. 403, 28 Am.

The ordinance is retroactive.

24 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 877; Brown v. Hunn, 27 Conn. 332, 71 Am. Dec. 71; Buffalo v. Chadeayne, 134 N. Y. 163, 31 N. E. 443; Cleveland v. Lenze, 27 Ohio St. 385; Dobbins v. Los Angeles, 195 U. S. 223, 49 L. ed. 169, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 18; Freund, Pol. Power, §§ 538, 685; Watertown v. Sawyer, 109 Mass. 320; Jackson v. Miller, 60 N. J. Eq. 182, 60 Atl. 1019; Morton v. Wessinger, 58 Or. 80, 113 Pac. 7; Wayman Invest. Co. v. Wessinger, 13 Cal. App. 108, 108 Pac. 1022; Re Yick Wo, 68 Cal. 294, 58 Am. Rep. 12, 9 Pac. 139.

The ordinance is unreasonable.

Freund, Pol. Power, § 63; Jackson v. Miller, 69 N. J. Eq. 182, 60 Atl. 1019; Karaseck v. Peier, 22 Wash. 419, 50 L.R.A. 345, 61 Pac. 33; Insurance Co. v. Luce, 11 Ohio C. C. 476; Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537, 41 L. ed. 256, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1138.

Defendants are estopped from destroying or removing the building by their acts in permitting the expenditure of large sums of money, in granting the permit, in levying and collecting taxes on the buildDec. 188; Allison v. Richmond, 51 Mo. App. 133; Buffalo v. Chadeayne, 134 N. Y. 163, 31 N. E. 443; Morton v. Wessinger, 58 Or. 80, 113 Pac. 7; Klingler v. Bickel, 117 Pa. 326, 11 Atl. 555.

When the law gives city officials the power to remove a building erected within fire limits, in violation of the statute or ordinance, the power to compel the removal of the building arises solely from the fact that its erection was in violation of the ordinance, and not because it is a nuisance, and the power to abate nuisances does not warrant destruction of valuable property which was lawfully erected, or anything which was erected by lawful authority, and the power to do so, when given by the legislature, is held to be inoperative and void, unless the thing is in fact a nuisance, or was created or erected after the passage of the ordinance, and in defiance of it. This is a distinction between the rights of a city regarding buildings erected before the fire limits were established and those subsequently built. Russell v. Fargo, 28 N. D. 300, 148 N. W. 610.

1920.

Statutes must be given effect, if pos

sible.

ing for eleven years, in acquiescing for | 164 U. S. 650, 41 L. ed. 586, 17 Sup. Ct.
eleven years in the maintenance of the Rep. 214.
building before attempting its removal or
demolition, and in themselves erecting,
subsequent to the erection of the building
in question, buildings of like construction
in the same district, and in maintaining
said buildings while attempting to de-
molish the one in suit.

Athens v. Georgia R. Co. 72 Ga. 800; Atlanta v. Gate City Gaslight Co. 71 Ga. 106; Los Angeles v. Cohn, 101 Cal. 373, 35 Pac. 1002; Los Angeles v. Los Angeles City Water Co. 124 Cal. 368, 57 Pac. 571; Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Joliet, 79 Ill. 25; Dobbins v. Los Angeles, 195 U. S. 223, 49 L. ed. 169, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 18; Martel v. East St. Louis, 94 Ill. 67. Plaintiffs have clean hands.

2 Lewis's Sutherland, Stat. Constr. 2d
ed. p. 927, § 498; Kaiser Land & Fruit
Co. v. Curry, 155 Cal. 638, 103 Pac. 341;
Warren County v. Nall, 78 Miss. 726, 29
So. 755; Black, Interpretation of Laws,
2d ed. p. 132; Hilburn v. St. Paul M.
& M. R. Co. 23 Mont. 229, 58 Pac. 551,
811; State ex rel. Kettle River Quarries
Co. v. Duis, 17 N. D. 319, 116 N. W. 751;
Slocum v. Neptune Twp. 68 N. J. L. 595,
53 Atl. 301; Hettel v. First Judicial Dist.
Ct. 30 Nev. 382, 133 Am. St. Rep. 731,
96 Pac. 1062; State ex rel. Kaufman v.
Martin, 31 Nev. 493, 103 Pac. 840; The
Emily, 9 Wheat. 381, 6 L. ed. 116.

The term "fire limits" has come to have Cooley, Const. Lim. 7th ed. p. 5; Minnesota Sugar Co. v. Iverson, 91 Minn. 30, a well-settled meaning. It means a dis97 N. W. 454; Norton v. Shelby County, trict within which the erection of wooden 2 Dill. Mun. Corp. 5th ed. § 727, pp. 118 U. S. 425, 30 L. ed. 178, 6 Sup. Ct. buildings is prohibited. Rep. 1121; People ex rel. Favington v. Mensching, 187 N. Y. 8, 10 L.R.A.(N.S.)1103, 1104; 3 McQuillin, Mun. Corp. § 625, 79 N. E. 884, 10 Ann. Cas. 101; Re Rohrer, 10 L.R.A. 444, 43 Fed. 556.

Mr. Maurice T. Dooling, Jr., argued the cause, and, with Mr. George Lull, filed a brief for defendants in error:

The state court has settled the construction of the ordinances and charter provision involved herein. This court, on writ of error to the state court, will not review the construction of state laws by the

state court.

Missouri v. Dockery, 191 U. S. 165, 48 L. ed. 133, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 53; Lombard v. West Chicago Park, 181 U. S. 33, 45 L. ed. 731, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 507; Marshall v. Ladd, 131 U. S. lxxxix, and 19 L. ed. 153; Harrison v. Myer, 92 U. S. 111, 23 L. ed. 606; Martin v. West, 222 U. S. 191, 56 L. ed. 159, 36 L.R.A. (N.S.) 592, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 42; Smiley v. Kansas, 196 U. S. 447, 49 L. ed. 546, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 289; The Winnebago V. De Laney (Iroquois Transp. Co. Forge & Iron Co.) 205 U. S. 354, 51 L. ed. 836, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 509; Gatewood v. North Carolina, 203 U. S. 531, 51 L. ed. 305, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 167; Clement Nat. Bank v. Vermont, 231 U. S. 120, 58 L. ed. 147, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 31; Fischer v. St. Louis, 194 U. S. 361, 48 L. ed. 1018, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 673; Danciger v. Cooley, 248 U. S. 319, 63 L. ed. 266, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 119; Price v. Illinois, 238 U. S. 446, 59 L. ed. 1400, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 892; Morley v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. 146 U. S. 162, 36 L. ed. 925, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 54; Osborne v. Florida,

948, p. 2061; Freund, Pol. Power, §§ 33,
141, pp. 29, 131; Micks v. Mason, 9 Ann.
Cas. 292, note; 13 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law,
2d ed. 396 et seq.

"Frame" and "wooden" are synonymous when applied to a building.

19 Cyc. 1450; Olmstead v. People, 41 Colo. 32, 91 Pac. 1113; Ward v. Murphysboro, 77 Ill. App. 549.

Every presumption is indulged in favor of the constitutionality of a state law, and this court will resolve every doubt in favor of its constitutionality.

Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S. 366, 42 L. ed. 780, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 383; Welch v. Swasey, 214 U. S. 91, 53 L. ed. 923, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 567; Laurel Hill Cemetery v. San Francisco, 216 U. S. 358, 54 L. ed. 515, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 301.

The ordinances attacked are not shown

to be unreasonably discriminatory.

Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co. 220 U. S. 61, 78, 79, 55 L. ed. 369, 377, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 337, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 160; Canepa v. Birmingham, 92 Ala. 358, 9 So. 180; Kaufman v. Stein, 138 Ind. 49, 46 Am. St. Rep. 368, 37 N. E. 333; Hubbard v. Medford, 20 Or. 315, 25 Pac. 640; Olympia v. Mann, 1 Wash. 389, 12 L.R.A. 150, 25 Pac. 337; Hine v. New Haven, 40 Conn. 478; Salem v. Maynes, 123 Mass. 372; Alexander v. Greenville, 54 Miss. 659; Respublica v. Duquet, 2 Yeates, 493; Baumgartner v. Hasty, 100 Ind. 575, 50 Am. Rep. 830; Wadleigh v. Gilman, 12 Me. 403, 28 Am. Dec. 188; Eichenlaub v. St. Joseph, 113 Mo. 395, 18 L.R.A. 590, 21 S. W. 8; Laurel Hill

629

Cemetery v. San Francisco, 216 U. S. 356, 54 L. ed. 515, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 301; Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11, 49 L. ed. 643, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 358, 3 Ann. Cas. 765; Otis v. Parker, 187 U. S. 606, 47 L. ed. 323, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 168. The state is not bound by general language in a statute.

Dollar Sav. Bank v. United States, 19 Wall. 227, 22 L. ed. 80; United States v. Herron, 20 Wall. 251, 22 L. ed. 275; United States v. North Carolina, 136 U. S. 211, 34 L. ed. 336, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 920; Guarantee Title & T. Co. v. Title Guaranty & S. Co. 224 U. S. 151, 56 L. ed. 706, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 457; Milwaukee v. McGregor, 140 Wis. 35, 121 N. W. 642, 17 Ann. Cas. 1002; A. L. & E. F. Goss Co. v. Greenleaf, 98 Me. 436, 57 Atl. 581; State ex rel. Cassidy v. Baker, 135 La. 92, 64 So. 993; Molineux v. State, 109 Cal. 378, 50 Am. St. Rep. 49, 42 Pac. 34; Mayrhofer v. Board of Education, 89 Cal. 110, 23 Am. St. Rep. 451, 26 Pac. 646; Savings & L. Soc. v. San Francisco, 131 Cal. 356, 63 Pac. 665; Whittaker v. Tuolumne County, 96 Cal. 100, 30 Pac. 1016; Berton v. All Persons, 176 Cal. 610, 170 Pac. 151.

The distinction between the governmental and proprietary functions of a municipality is well recognized. Acting in a proprietary capacity, the city and county of San Francisco might be bound by the fire-limits ordinances, but not in its governmental capacity.

Vilas v. Manila, 220 U. S. 345, 55 L. ed. 491, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 416; South Carolina v. United States, 199 U. S. 437, 50 L. ed. 261, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 110, 4 Ann. Cas. 737; New Orleans Gaslight Co. v. Drainage Commission, 197 U. S. 453, 49 L. ed. 831, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 471; Los Angeles v. Los Angeles Gas & E. Corp. 251 U. S. 32, 64 L. ed. 121, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 76.

Plaintiffs in error, having erected a wooden building in the fire limits, in violation of law, can have no vested rights therein.

Baumgartner v. Hasty, 100 Ind. 575, 50 Am. Rep. 830; Brooklyn v. Furey, 9 Misc. 193, 30 N. Y. Supp. 349; Freund, Pol. Power, p. 560, § 528.

The officers of the city could no more expressly or impliedly legally contract for the erection of a wooden building within the fire limits than could private individuals. Any such contract would be illegal and a nullity.

Howell v. Hamburg Co. 165 Cal. 172, 131 Pac. 130.

The ordinance is not retroactive.

Bancroft v. Goldberg, B. & Co. 16 Cal. App. Dec. 37; Plymouth Coal Co. v. Pennsylvania, 232 U. S. 531, 544, 545, 58 L. ed. 713, 719, 720, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 359; Laurel Hill Cemetery v. San Francisco, 216 U. S. 358, 54 L. ed. 515, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 301; Re O'Brien, 29 Mont. 530, 75 Pac. 196, 1 Ann. Cas. 373; Farneman v. Mt. Pleasant Cemetery Asso. 135 Ind. 344, 35 N. E. 271; Standard Stock Food Co. v. Wright, 225 U. S. 540, 56 L. ed. 1197, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 784; Murphy v. California, 225 U. S. 623, 56 L. ed. 1299, 41 L.R.A. (N.S.) 153, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 697; Aluminum Co. v. Ramsey, 222 U. S. 251, 56 L. ed. 185, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 76, 1 N. C. C. A. 251; Castillo v. MeConnico, 168 U. S. 674, 680, 42 L. ed. 622, 625, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 229.

The ordinance does not destroy property without due process of law.

North American Cold Storage Co. v. Chicago, 211 U. S. 306, 53 L. ed. 195, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 101, 15 Ann. Cas. 276; 13 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 400; Miller v. Valparaiso, 10 Ind. App. 22, 37 N. E. 418; Baumgartner v. Hasty, 100 Ind. 575, 50 Am. Rep. 830; Lemmon v. Guthrie Center, 113 Iowa, 36, 86 Am. St. Rep. 361, 84 N. W. 986; Eichenlaub v. St. Joseph, 113 Mo. 395, 18 L.R.A. 590, 21 S. W. 8, 9 Ann. Cas. 291, and note; Micks v. Mason, 145 Mich. 212, 11 L.R.A. (N.S.) 653, 108 N. W. 707; Hine v. New Haven, 40 Conn. 478; McKibbin v. Ft. Smith, 35 Ark. 352; King v. Davenport, 98 Ill. 305, 38 Am. Rep. 89; Klingler v. Bickel, 117 Pa. 326, 11 Atl. 555; Baxter v. Seattle, 3 Wash. 352, 28 Pac. 537; Wadleigh v. Gilman, 12 Me. 403, 28 Am. Dec. 188; Freund, Pol. Power, p. 560, § 528; 3 McQuillin, Mun. Corp. p. 2077; 2 Dill. Mun. Corp. 5th ed. pp. 1106, 1107; 4 R. C. L. p. 413, § 18.

The city is not and cannot be estopped to destroy a wooden building within the fire limits.

Fire Dept. v. Atlas S. S. Co. 106 N. Y. 566, 13 N. E. 329; Brooklyn v. Furey, 9 Misc. 193, 30 N. Y. Supp. 349; Boston Beer Co. v. Massachusetts, 97 U. S. 25, 32, 24 L. ed. 989, 992; New York & N. E. R. Co. v. Bristol, 151 U. S. 556, 570, 38 L. ed. 269, 273, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 437; Northern P. R. Co. v. Minnesota, 208 U. S. 583, 598, 52 L. ed. 630, 636, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 341; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Goldsboro, 232 U. S. 548, 556, 58 L. ed. 721, 726, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 364; 28 Cyc. 696; 1 MeQuillin, Mun. Corp. p. 842; Douglas v. Greenville, 92 S. C. 374, 49 L.R.A. (N.S.) 958, 75 S. E. 687; Union Cemetery Asso. v. Kansas

« ForrigeFortsett »