City of Rochester v. Macauley-Fien Milling Co.
Decision Date | 27 September 1910 |
Parties | CITY OF ROCHESTER v. MACAULEY-FIEN MILLING CO. |
Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
Action by the City of Rochester against the Macauley-Fien Milling Company. From a judgment of the Appellate Division (131 App. Div. 923,115 N. Y. Supp. 1115), affirming a judgment of the Monroe County Court, which affirmed a judgment of the Rochester Municipal Court in favor of plaintiff and against defendant for $25 damages and costs, defendant appeals by permission of the Appellate Division. Affirmed.
The common council of the city of Rochester duly enacted an ordinance relating to public safety and good order, which, so far as it relates to the defendant, is as follows:
* * *
The defendant is a domestic corporation operating and conducting a flour mill in said city. After the ordinance quoted became in force as a law of the city, and on November 2, 1906, the defendant continuously between 10:16 a. m. and 11:15 a. m. suffered and permitted the escape of smoke from a stationary smokestake on said flour mill, in violation of said ordinance.
This action was commenced in the municipal court of the city of Rochester to recover of the defendant $25, the penalty for such disobedience of said ordinance. Judgment was recovered against the defendant, which has been affirmed by the County Court of the county of Monroe and the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, respectively, on appeals to such courts, and an appeal is taken by permission from the judgment of the said Appellate Division of the Supreme Court to this court.Joseph R. Webster, for appellant.
William W. Webb, for respondent.
CHASE, J. (after stating the facts as above).
At the time when this action was commenced Rochester was a city of the second class, governed by the second-class cities law (chapter 55 of the Laws of 1909 [Consol. Laws, c. 53]), which, so far as we are now concerned, is a re-enactment of chapter 182 of the Laws of 1898. Said act of 1898 was in force when said ordinance was enacted. The common council of the city is vested with legislative power by a provision of the statute as follows: ‘The legislative power of the city is vested in the common council thereof, and it has authority to enact ordinances, not inconsistent with law, for the government of the city and the management of its business, for the preservation of good order, peace and health, for the safety and welfare of its inhabitants and the protection and security of their property. * * *’ Second-Class Cities Law, § 30, chapter 182, Laws 1898, § 12. This court in People ex rel. Dunn v. Ham, 166 N. Y. 477, 481,60 N. E. 191, 192, in construing the section from which we have quoted, said: The common council is thus the judge as to what ordinances it will pass for the safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the city and the protection and security of their property, and, unless an ordinance passed by it is wholly arbitrary and unreasonable, it should be upheld. The necessity and advisability of the ordinance is for the legislative power to determine. The presumption is in favor of the ordinance....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ballentine v. Nester
... ... 58 Ex parte Bruce Ross Ballentine, Petitioner, v. Thos. Nester, City" Marshal No. 38043 Supreme Court of Missouri August 6, 1942 ... \xC2" ... Wooley v. Mears, 226 Mo. 41; Hays v. Milling ... Co., 227 Mo. 288; State ex rel. Wiles v ... Williams, 232 Mo ... Paul v ... Haugbro, 93 Minn. 59, 100 N.W. 470; City of ... Rochester v. Macauley-Fien Milling Co., 199 N.Y. 207, 92 ... N.E. 641, 32 L. R. A ... ...
-
Ballentine v. Nester, 38043.
...Co. v. Chicago, 138 Fed. 209; City of St. Paul v. Haugbro, 93 Minn. 59, 100 N.W. 470; City of Rochester v. Macauley-Fien Milling Co., 199 N.Y. 207, 92 N.E. 641, 32 L.R.A. (N.S.) 554; Northwestern Laundry v. Des Moines, 239 U.S. 486, 36 Sup. Ct. 206, 60 L. Ed. 396; Bowers v. City of Indianap......
-
Board of Health of Weehawken Tp., Hudson County v. New York Cent. R. Co.
...a matter of common experience, so much so that it is properly a subject of judicial notice. City of Rochester v. Macauley-Fien Milling Co., 199 N.Y. 207, 92 N.E. 641, 32 L.R.A.,N.S., 554 (1910); Bowers v. City of Indianapolis, 169 Ind. 105, 81 N.E. 1097, 13 Ann.Cas. 1198 (1907). In Garrett ......
-
Trio Distributor Corp. v. City of Albany
...is for the legislative power to determine. The presumption is in favor of the ordinance.' City of Rochester v. Macauley-Fien Milling Co., 199 N.Y. 207, 211, 92 N.E. 641, 642, 32 L.R.A.,N.S., 554; see, also, Defiance Milk Products Co. v. Du Mond, 309 N.Y. 537, 543-551, 132 N.E.2d 829, 831-83......