Boland v. Compagno

• Decision Date: 11 July 1923
• Docket Number: 25540
• Citation: 97 So. 661,154 La. 469
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: BOLAND et al. v. COMPAGNO et al

97 So. 661

154 La. 469

BOLAND et al. v. COMPAGNO et al

No. 25540

Supreme Court of Louisiana

July 11, 1923

Rehearing Denied October 2, 1923

Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; Hugh C. Cage Judge.

Suit by J. K. Boland and others against Charles Compagno and others. From a judgment refusing an injunction, plaintiffs appeal.

Judgment annulled, and case remanded on rehearing.

Henry Cooper & Westerfield, of New Orleans, for appellants.

Arthur Landry, of New Orleans, for appellees.

Henry W. Robinson, Ivy G. Kittredge, City Atty., and Rene A. Viosca, Asst. City Atty., all of New Orleans, amici curiae.

O'NIELL, C. J. ROGERS, J., takes no part.

OPINION

O'NIELL, C. J.

This is one of the cases in which a so-called zoning ordinance of the city of New Orleans is contested. The case is referred to in the opinion which we handed down today in State ex rel. Civello v. City of New Orleans (No. 25566) ante, 154 La. 271, 97 So. 440.

The plaintiffs in this case own their residences, on Carrollton avenue, in the neighborhood of Maple street. The defendant Compagno owns property at the corner of Carrollton avenue and Maple street, where he has undertaken to establish and conduct a fruit and vegetable stand and an oyster counter. The establishment of any business (except a drug store, boarding house, apartment house, hotel, or bank) on Carrollton avenue between St. Charles avenue and Colapissa street, where Compagno's property is, is forbidden by Ordinance No. 5645, adopted January 13, 1920. As originally adopted, the ordinance excepted from the prohibition drug stores, boarding houses, apartment houses, and hotels, and by Ordinance No. 5867, adopted April 7, 1920, it was amended so as to except also banks.

Defendant contends that the ordinance is invalid for all of the reasons urged against the ordinance contested in the case of State ex rel. Civello v. City of New Orleans (No. 25566) supra. And he contends that the discrimination in favor of drug stores, boarding houses, apartment houses, hotels, and banks is an arbitrary discrimination against other business establishments, and therefore deprives the proprietors of such other establishments of the equal protection of the laws.

The civil district court adjudged the ordinance in this case invalid, and refused to issue an injunction. The plaintiffs have appealed, and the city attorney has taken part in the defense of the city's...