Carroll v. Clty Of Lynchburg
| Decision Date | 26 April 1888 |
| Citation | 6 S.E. 133,84 Va. 803 |
| Parties | CARROLL v. ClTY of LYNCHBURG. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Municipal Corporations—Regulation of Erection of Buildings.
Adding a story to a house heretofore erected, is erecting a building, within the meaning of an ordinance providing that no person shall erect any building in the city outside the fire limits, and within 30 feet of any building not his own, except of such materials as are allowed for building within the limits.
Error to corporation court of Lynchburg.
W. V. Wilson, Jr., for plaintiff in error.
Kirkpatrick & Blackford, for defendant in error.
This is a writ of error to a judgment rendered by the corporation court of Lynchburg on the 15th day of January, 1887. The plaintiff in error was summoned before the mayor, and fined for building a wooden building outside of the fire limits within the city of Lynchburg, in violation of the fourth section of the ordinance of the city, which provides as follows: "(4) No person shall erect any building in that portion of the city outside of the fire limits, and within thirty feet of any building not his own property, except of such materials as are allowed for buildings within said limits." The plaintiff in error constructed an addition of another story to a house already built of materials prohibited by the ordinance for the construction of a building; but he insists that, as the charter provides that "no person shall erect, or cause to be erected, any building, unless the walls be composed entirely of brick, " etc., the law must be strictly construed, because it is a penal statute, and "no one is to be brought within the penalty of the act who is not withinthe plain meaning of the words;" and "if this strict construction is placed upon this law, it is as much at variance with reason to say that the addition to said building constitutes 'the erection of a building, ' as it would be to say a new roof or porch was a building in itself." The corporation court was not able to perceive the substance in this shadow of an argument, and in this there is no error; for there is no difference in the meaning of the word "erect" when applied to a whole building, and when applied to a part of a building. In both cases it means "to build." And this is recognized and provided for in the law in question. The second section of the ordinance, referring to the fire limits, provides: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bd. of Com'rs of Guadalupe County v. State
...Harrell et al. v. Bd. of Com'rs, 206 N.C. 225, 173 S.E. 614; Jewett et al. v. School Dist., 49 Wyo. 277, 54 P.2d 546; Carroll v. Lynchburg, 84 Va. 803, 6 S.E. 133; Delione v. Long Branch Com'rs, 55 N.J.L. 108, 25 A. 274; Caskey v. Edwards, 128 Mo.App. 237, 107 S.W. 37. If the bonds had been......
-
City of Mayville v. Rosing
...within the meaning of the ordinance. People v. Marley, 2 Wheeler's Crim. Cases 74; Douglass v. Commonwealth, 2 Rawl's Rep. 262; Carroll v. Lynchburg, 6 S.E. 133; People v. Sweetser, 1 Dak. 308, 46 N.W. The intention of the legislature must govern in penal as in other statutes, and the obvio......
-
Foods First, Inc. v. Gables Associates
...constructed many years earlier. The meaning of the word "erect" was previously considered by this Court in Carroll v. City of Lynchburg, 84 Va. 803, 6 S.E. 133 (1888). There, the word was examined in the context of a city ordinance which prohibited any person from erecting a building that d......
-
Greenough v. Allen Theater & Realty Co.
...to a whole building, and when applied to a part of a building. In both cases it means 'to build.'" Lacy, J., in Carroll v. City of Lynchburg, 84 Va. 803, 804, 6 S. E. 133, 134. "The law gives a lien to mechanics on 'every building erected' by them, but not for adding to or altering an old b......