Eubank v. City Of Richmond

Decision Date10 March 1910
Citation110 Va. 749,67 S.E. 376
PartiesEUBANK v. CITY OF RICHMOND.
CourtVirginia Supreme Court

1. Constitutional Law (§ 81*) — Police Power.

The Legislature in the exercise of its police power may place limitations upon personal and property rights for the promotion of the public health, morals, and safety.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Constitutional Law, Cent. Dig. § 148; Dec. Dig. § 81.*]

2. Municipal Corporations (§ 601*)—Public Improvements—Building Regulations —Validity of Statutes.

Act Gen. Assem. March 14, 1908 (Acts 1908. pp. 023, 024), authorizing cities to make building regulations, and, in their discreton, in particular districts or streets, to establish building lines or require owners to leave a part of the lots free from buildings, and to regulate the height of buildings, etc., is a valid police regulation in the interest of the public health, safety, comfort, and convenience, or some of those objects, and was not unconstitutional.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Cent. Dig. § 1333; Dec. Dig. § 001.*]

3. Constitutional Law (§ 63*)—Delegation of Legislative Power — Delegation to Street Committee.

An ordinance providing that, whenever two-thirds of the abutting property owners request the committee on streets to establish a building line on the side of the square on which their property fronts, the committee shall establish such line not less than five nor more than 30 feet from the street line, and no building permit shall be issued for the construction of houses within such limit, did not delegate legislative functions to the street committee, it having no discretion as to whether a street line shall be established, but only in fixing the line within the prescribed limits.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Constitutional Law, Dec. Dig. § 63.*]

Error to Hustings Court of Richmond.

J. E. Eubank was convicted of violating a building ordinance, and he brings error. Affirmed.

S. S. P. Patterson, for plaintiff in error.

H. R. Pollard and Geo. Wayne Anderson, for defendant in error.

WHITTLE, J. This writ of error is to a judgment of the hustings court of the city of Richmond, affirming a judgment of the police justice of the city imposing a fine upon the plaintiff in error for the violation of the "building line" ordinance.

By act of the General Assembly of Virginia passed March 14, 1908, councils of cities and towns are authorized, among other things, "to make regulations concerning the building of houses in the city or town, and in their discretion * * * in particular districts or along particular streets, to prescribe and establish building lines, or to require property owners in certain localities or districts to leave a certain percentage of lots free from buildings, and to regulate the height of buildings, " etc. Acts 1908, pp. 623, 624.

By virtue of this act, the city council passed an ordinance "that whenever the owners of two-thirds of the property abutting on any street shall, in writing, request the committee on streets to establish a building line on the side of the square on which their property fronts, the said committee shall establish such line so that the same shall not be less than five feet nor more than thirty feet from the street line, * * * and no permit for the erection of any building upon such front of the square upon which such building line is so established shall be issued except for the construction of houses within the limits of such line." The ordinance then prescribes a fine of not less than $25 nor more than $500 for its violation.

The controlling question presented by the record is whether or not the act of March 14, 1908, is constitutional. If that question be answered in the affirmative, it will be only necessary for us to inquire whether or not the power granted has been lawfully exercjsed.

It is well understood and settled by decisions of the highest authority that the Legislature may, in the exercise of the police power, place limitations upon personal rights and the rights of property in the interest of public health, public morals, and public safety.

This principle was distinctly announced in the case of Welch v. Swasey, 193 Mass. 364, 79 N. E. 745, 118 Am. St. Rep. 523, involving the validity of building regulations made by authority of legislative enactment, with respect to the height of buildings and their mode of construction in cities. The application for a mandamus by the plaintiff in errorwas addressed to the justices of the Supreme Judicial Court of the state of Massachusetts to compel the defendants in error, who constituted a board of appeal from the building commissioner of the city of Boston, to issue a permit to him to build on his lot in that city. The ground of refusal to grant the building permit was because the site for the proposed building was in a district in which the height of buildings was limited to from eighty to one hundred feet, and the height of the proposed building was in excess of the prescribed limit. The case was referred to the full court, which held the statute and the action of the commission thereunder constitutional. Upon writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States, the judgment was unanimously affirmed. Welch v. Swasey, 214 U. S. 91, 29 Sup. Ct. 567, 53 L. Ed. 923.

I...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • State ex rel. Lachtman v. Houghton
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • July 28, 1916
    ...the business in its present location was so detrimental to the interests of others as to require suppression. In Eubank v. Richmond, 110 Va. 749, 67 S. E. 376,19 Ann. Cas. 186, the court sustained as a proper exercise of the police power an ordinance which required the committee on streets ......
  • State ex rel. Lachtman v. Houghton
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • July 28, 1916
    ...upon a certain line was held void, but there also was the element of control by neighboring property owners as in the case of Eubank v. City of Richmond, supra. Quintini v. Board of Aldermen, 64 Miss. 483, 1 So. 625, 60 Am. Rep. 62, the question was as to the validity of a statute making it......
  • State ex rel. Lachtman v. Houghton
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • July 28, 1916
    ...business in its present location was so detrimental to the interests of others as to require suppression. In Eubank v. City of Richmond, 110 Va. 749, 67 S. E. 376, 49 Ann. Cas. 186, the court sustained as a proper exercise of the police power an ordinance which required the committee on str......
  • Oakley v. Richards
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 5, 1918
    ...130 N.Y.S. 260; Railway Co. v. Lyons, 155 Ky. 396; United States v. Romard, 89 F. 156; Spiegler v. Chicago, 74 N. E. (Ill.) 718; Eubank v. Richmond, 110 Va. 749; Plinklewisch Light & Power Co., 115 P. 151; Commonwealth v. Maletsky, 203 Mass. 241; Centralia v. Smith, 103 Mo.App. 440; Welch v......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT