City Council of Augusta v. Loftis

• Decision Date: 14 July 1923
• Docket Number: 3579.
• Citation: City Council of Augusta v. Loftis, 156 Ga. 77, 118 S.E. 666 (Ga. 1923)
• Parties: CITY COUNCIL OF AUGUSTA ET AL. v. LOFTIS.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

118 S.E. 666

156 Ga. 77

CITY COUNCIL OF AUGUSTA ET AL. v. LOFTIS.

No. 3579.

Supreme Court of Georgia

July 14, 1923

Syllabus by the Court.

The right of appeal from a ruling of the plumbing inspector of Augusta, unlawfully prohibiting the installation of given appliances in a building being erected in that city, to the board of health of that city, and the writ of certiorari, do not furnish to a person aggrieved by such illegal action of the plumbing inspector a complete and adequate remedy to redress such wrong; the ruling of such board on appeal to review the action of the inspector being a ministerial or administrative ruling, to which the writ of certiorari will not lie for correction of errors therein.

(a) The ruling of the board of health, on appeal by the party aggrieved by the action of the plumbing inspector, when the ruling of the board is adverse to the appellant, is not such a judgment as will conclude the latter from resorting to a court of equity to enjoin the city council and the inspector from interfering with the installation of such appliances, on the ground that the action of the inspector and of said board amounts to an arbitrary and unreasonable administration of the city ordinance under which they were acting; such appeal being necessary to perfect the party's right to resort to equity by exhausting other available remedies.

The provision of the plumbing ordinance of the city of Augusta making the plumbing inspector the judge of the quality of the material used in the construction of buildings in that city does not confer upon that officer the power to prescribe the kind of material to be so used; and when the owner or contractor proposes to use material or appliances which are reasonably suited to secure the safety, welfare, and health of the community, the inspector, under this ordinance, cannot reject such material and require the owner or contractor to use other material or appliances, although the latter may be better than those which the owner or contractor proposes to use.

(a) Such action of the plumbing inspector would be an arbitrary and unreasonable administration of the ordinance, which a court of equity will enjoin.

(b) An improper installation of proper appliances would not authorize the inspector to refuse to permit their use, and he would only be authorized to prohibit their improper installation.

(c) The ruling of the inspector that the installation of proposed appliances is being done improperly is not final and conclusive upon the owner or contractor; and, when such ruling is erroneous, a court of equity will grant relief by enjoining its enforcement, it being finally for the courts to decide whether an ordinance is being arbitrarily and unreasonably enforced.

Under the pleadings and the evidence the chancellor did not err in granting an interlocutory injunction.

Error from Superior Court, Richmond County; H. C. Hammond, Judge.

Suit by W. S. Loftis against the City Council of Augusta and others.Judgment granting injunction, and defendants bring error.Affirmed.

Improper installation of proper appliances held not to authorize plumbing inspector to refuse to permit their use but only to prohibit their improper installation.

W. S Lofits, a contractor, filed his petition against the city council of Augusta and its plumbing inspector, praying that they be enjoined from interfering with him in the installation of P traps in connection with bathtubs in the Richmond Hotel being built in Augusta.He alleged that he was executing the work in accordance with the plans and specifications furnished by the engineer and architect in charge of the erection of the Richmond Hotel.These plans and specifications provided for the installation of P traps in draining these bathtubs, and no other.Petitioner's contract called for the installation and use of these traps.The P traps are more sanitary than drum traps, and in accordance with the highest types of plumbing.When the plans were submitted to the plumbing inspector, he refused to approve the use of P traps, and arbitrarily and without reason demanded that said plans be changed, and that drum traps be used in said hotel.The plumbing inspector, construing an ordinance of the city arbitrarily and unreasonably, refused to approve the character of plumbing recognized by those in position to know as the most efficient and sanitary plumbing in use.Said ordinance provides that--

"The plumbing inspector is to be the judge of the quality of the material and workmanship, and the construing of the ordinances as to their meaning.Should any difference of opinion arise, appeal from his decision must be made at once, in writing, to the board of health, stating full particulars of disputed points, clearly, and copy of same furnished Inspector of Plumbing in six hours; otherwise his judgment will govern."

Said ordinance also provides that--

"Every fixture having a waste pipe, except in the case of wash-trays, shall have a sufficient, suitable, and approved trap, placed as near the fixture as possible."

Said plumbing inspector construes this ordinance to mean that suitable, approved traps are those which he alone approves; to wit, drum traps.Said construction is arbitrary, unreasonable, unjustifiable, and discriminatory.At the time the plumbing inspector refused to approve said P trap the construction of said hotel had progressed to such a stage that to make the necessary changes for the use of drum traps would have been expensive, and would have weakened the entire hotel construction, as it would have required petitioner to cut one, and in some instances two, of the main concrete ribs supporting the floors of said hotel, approximately 200 in number.Said inspector not only discriminates unjustly against the P trap, which is recognized as efficient and sanitary, but discriminates in favor of the drum trap, which he insists is the only trap he will approve in this hotel building.If the plumbing inspector's construction of said ordinance prevails, it will be to the great detriment of petitioner, who has contracted to do the plumbing according to plans and specifications of architects of recognized ability.He has expended a large amount in carrying out his contract based on these plans and specifications.

The defendant demurred to the petition on the grounds: (1) That the plaintiff has not set forth an equitable cause of action; (2) that there is no equity in the petition; (3) that petitioner has a complete and adequate remedy at law; (4) that the ordinance of which plaintiff complains provides for appeal from the decisions of the plumbing inspector, and that is the remedy of plaintiff; and (5) that it appears from the petition that the defendants are governmental agencies, that in the things complained of they are acting in their respective governmental capacities in the discharge of governmental powers, and their acts are not subject to review by the court.The defendants filed their answer, in which they denied that the action of the plumbing inspector was arbitrary and unreasonable.They admitted the plumbing inspector had refused to permit the use of P traps in the Richmond Hotel, and set out the ordinances of the city of Augusta under which he acted.They denied that the plumbing inspector's construction of these ordinances was arbitrary and unreasonable.The pertinent portions of these ordinances are set out above with this exception:

"These traps shall be protected from siphonage or air pressure by a special air pipe of a size not less than the waste pipe.* * * No more than two fixtures will be allowed, except in case of fixtures having vents smaller than 2 inches, when 3 fixtures with 11 1/2-inch vents may be used on a two-inch pipe; but when 2-inch vent is used, only 2 fixtures will be allowed on a 2-inch vent of 20 feet or less; where over 20 feet or more than the above-mentioned fixtures are placed, the vent pipe shall not be less than 3-inch bore, and 10 fixtures shall be allowed, without regard to the size of fixture vents, on a 3-inch vent pipe.Where more than 10 fixtures are placed, a 4-inch vent pipe shall be used.* * * They shall either extend independently through and above the roof of the house or be connected with the main pipe above the highest fixture in the building."

The defendants admitted that the plumbing inspector...