City Of Dayton v. Kresge Co.
| Decision Date | 27 April 1926 |
| Docket Number | 19374 |
| Citation | 151 N.E. 775,114 Ohio St. 624 |
| Parties | City Of Dayton Et Al. v. S.S. Kresge Co. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Municipal corporations - Building regulations not, invalid, when - Workshops, factories and mercantile establishments - Ordinance prohibiting rolling, double-acting, sliding or revolving doors, constitutional.
1. The determination of the question whether or not building regulations prescribed by an ordinance are reasonably necessary for the safety of the public is committed in the first instance to the judgment, and discretion of the legislative body of the municipality, and unless it is clear that such regulations are unreasonable and arbitrary or have no real or substantial relation to the public health, safety morals, or general welfare, the courts will not hold the same invalid.
2. An ordinance prohibiting rolling, double-acting, sliding, or revolving doors as a means of egress from workshops factories, or mercantile establishments, is valid.
______________
Municipal Corporations, 28 Cyc. pp. 282, 370, 745;
Health 29 C. T. § 62; Municipal Corporations, 28 Cyc. pp. 736, 765. ______________
This action was brought in the court of common pleas of Montgomery county to enjoin the enforcement of certain provisions of an ordinance of the city of Dayton commonly designated the Building Code. These provisions are as follows:
These provisions are found under a division of the Municipal Building Code relating to mercantile establishments and also to workshops and factories.
Preparatory to the erection of a six-story storeroom and office building in the city of Dayton, the Kresge Company prepared and presented plans and drawings to the division of building inspection of that city, and thereafter a permit to erect the building in accordance therewith was duly issued. As the portion thereof intended to be used and occupied by the Kresge Company itself as a large five and ten cent store was nearing completion, the chief inspector of the division of building inspection of said city objected to the installation and use of double-acting doors at the street entrance of the store. It is disclosed that when the plans were submitted for the purpose of procuring a building permit the same showed the exit doors as swinging outward, and it is clear that it was intended that the requirements of the ordinance should be complied with. It was contended that the enforcement of such regulation would "constitute an unreasonable and illegal invasion of plaintiff's rights, will unduly interfere with its business, will place it on an inequality with its competitors in the city of Dayton, and will break the uniformity of design and appearance of its stores throughout the state of Ohio and the United States generally."
The plaintiff asked an injunction against the enforcement of the ordinance by the city by vacating the building permit theretofore issued to plaintiff, as threatened, and against interference with the plaintiff in the use of its said storeroom with double-acting doors, as installed by it.
Upon hearing in the court of common pleas that court found "that the requirements of the ordinance are unreasonable and will undoubtedly interfere with the plaintiff's business," and granted the permanent injunction prayed for by the plaintiff. The case was appealed to the Court of Appeals and was there submitted upon the transcript of the evidence heard in the court of common pleas and additional evidence there adduced. That court also found that the provisions of the ordi- nance were unreasonable and invalid and made permanent the injunction theretofore issued. Whereupon error was prosecuted to this court.
Mr. John B. Harshman, city attorney, and Mr. Walter V. Snyder, for plaintiffs in error.
Messrs. James & Coolidge, for defendant in error.
The only question presented in this case is whether a municipal corporation may, by ordinance, prohibit mercantile establishments from using double-acting exit doors, and require the exit doors of such establishments to be so constructed and installed as to swing outward only. The ordinance of the city of Dayton having reference to the exit doors of mercantile establishments required. that such doors should swing outward and toward the open or natural means of egress, and prohibited rolling, double-acting, sliding, and revolving doors as a means of egress from such establishments. The remedy of injunction is sought to prevent the enforcement of such ordinance upon the ground that the provisions referred to are invalid because the same are unreasonable and arbitrary.
This ordinance was regularly enacted by the city of Dayton, which is a charter city, pursuant to the powers conferred by Section 3, Article XVIII, of the state Constitution. This ordinance constitutes a police regulation, and it is not in conflict with the general laws of the state. It therefore has the same force and effect within the city of Dayton as would an act of the Legisla- ture, and consequently is valid unless it is in conflict with some provision of either the state or federal Constitution.
The contention of counsel for plaintiff, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial