City of Knoxville v. Chi., B. & Q. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 23 October 1891 |
| Citation | 83 Iowa 636,50 N.W. 61 |
| Parties | CITY OF KNOXVILLE v. CHICAGO, B. & Q. R. CO. ET AL. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Marion county; A. W. WILKINSON, Judge.
Information on oath was filed with the mayor of the city of Knoxville, accusing the defendants “of the crime of erecting, keeping, and maintaining a nuisance in said city, * * * in violation of the ordinances of said city, for that they used and kept a stock-yard, for the keeping and loading stock, in such condition as to constitute a nuisance under said ordinances.” It is asked in the information “that said defendants be dealt with according to law, and that said nuisance be abated.” The defendants, being served with notice, appeared, and separately demurred to the information, upon the grounds that the information was insufficient, and “because this court has no jurisdiction to try and determine this case under the ordinances of said city.” The demurrers were overruled, and after hearing all the evidence on both sides the court found that there was a nuisance at the time of the filing of the information, by reason of the condition of the stock-yards, and that the defendants had abated said nuisance, and adjudged that the defendants pay the costs. From this judgment the defendants appealed to the district court, and, plaintiff's motion to dismiss the appeal being overruled, the case was called for trial to a jury. After all the evidence was introduced, the court, on motion of the defendants, instructed the jury: “You are instructed that the city of Knoxville had no power or authority to pass the ordinance under which the defendants are being prosecuted, and, such being the case, the ordinance is null and void, and you will return a verdict in favor of the defendants.” A verdict was returned accordingly, and judgment entered against the plaintiff for costs, from which the plaintiff appeals to this court.L. Kinkead, for appellant.
J. D. Gamble, for appellees.
1. The discussions resolve themselves into the single inquiry whether the city of Knoxville had power to pass the ordinances under which this prosecution is had. Eight sections of the ordinance are set out at length, but the parts necessary to be noticed are in substance as follows: It declares what shall constitute a nuisance, and includes such acts as are charged against the defendants, and provides that upon conviction the accused shall be subject to a fine not exceeding $25 for the first offense, and in case of a continuance of the nuisance “a fine, the amount of which shall be the aggregate of $10, for each day such offender shall continue such nuisance after the first conviction, in no case exceeding $100 and costs.” It is also provided: “And in all cases of conviction under this ordinance, whenever it shall appear to the court that...
To continue reading
Request your trial