City of Shreveport v. Dickason
Citation | 107 So. 427,160 La. 563 |
Decision Date | 01 February 1926 |
Docket Number | 27562 |
Court | Supreme Court of Louisiana |
Parties | CITY OF SHREVEPORT v. DICKASON |
Rehearing Denied March 1, 1926
Appeal from First Judicial District Court, Parish of Caddo; T. F Bell, Judge.
Suit by the City of Shreveport against Mrs. Blanche Dickason. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Avoided, and judgment rendered for defendant.
Barksdale Bullock, Warren, Clark & Van Hook, of Shreveport, for appellant.
B. F. Roberts, of Shreveport, for appellee.
OPINION
The defendant is the owner of four lots of ground in the Guy & Stinson subdivision of the city of Shreveport. She applied to the building inspector for a permit to erect a gasoline filling station on the property. The permit was denied, and she instituted mandamus proceedings to compel its issuance. The defense to that suit was that Ordinances Nos. 7 of 1922 and 235 of 1923 of the city of Shreveport had zoned the section of the city in which plaintiff's lots were situated, and the erection of business buildings within the territorial limits fixed in said ordinances was prohibited. Plaintiff's suit was dismissed by the district judge, but on appeal to this court we held that the two ordinances relied upon by the city were invalid because they did not define the district they proposed to create with reasonable certainty, and we therefore ordered defendant to issue the permit applied for. State ex rel. Dickason v. Harris, 105 So. 33, 158 La. 974.
While the case referred to was pending in the district court, the city council adopted and promulgated Ordinance No. 110 of 1924. Following the rendition of the judgment of the district court in that case and the perfection of an appeal therefrom, section 3 of Ordinance No. 110 of 1924 was amended by the adoption of Ordinance No. 177 of 1924. These ordinances are as follows:
On July 3, 1925, the city council adopted Ordinance No. 114, which we also quote:
Under the provisions of the foregoing ordinances the plaintiff brought the suit which is now before us. The prayer of the petition is for a rule upon defendant to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue, for a temporary restraining order, and, after trial, for judgment perpetuating the injunction. Plaintiff was ruled into court to produce certain documents. The rules were discharged. A motion to dissolve the restraining order and an exception of no cause of action were then filed, but, after a hearing thereon, the motion and exception were overruled, and a preliminary injunction was granted the plaintiff. This was followed by a motion for a new trial, which was also overruled, and finally the answer of defendant.
The defenses to the suit are found in the motion to dissolve the restraining order and in the answer. They are as follows:
That the judgment of this court in the Dickason-Harris suit (105 So. 33, 158 La. 974), is conclusive of defendant's right to the permit, the issuance of which is ordered by said judgment; that Ordinances Nos. 110 and 177 of 1924, if valid except from their operation permits issued prior to their...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Summerell v. Phillips
...State ex rel. Civello v. City of New Orleans, 154 La. 271, 97 So. 440, 33 A.L.R. 260. The plaintiff relies upon City of Shreveport v. Dickason, 160 La. 563, 107 So. 427 and State ex rel. Fitzmaurice v. Clay, 208 La. 443, 23 So.2d 177. Both cases are The Shreveport case presented novel circu......
-
City of New Orleans v. Levy
...the Equal Protection clause of the United States Constitution.' And in support of such contention defendants rely on City of Shreveport v. Dickason, 160 La. 563, 107 So. 427 and Simmons v. City of Shreveport, 221 La. 902, 60 So.2d 867 wherein this court approved the principle set out by the......
-
Russian Hill Imp. Ass'n v. Board of Permit Appeals of City and County of San Francisco
... ... Kilbourne (1929) 109 Conn. 422, 147 A. 124; City of Shreveport v. Dickason (1926) 160 La. 563, 107 So. 427; Alexander v. Building Inspector of Provincetown (Mass.1966) 214 N.E.2d 876; Fleming v. Moore Bros ... ...
-
State ex rel. Manhein v. Harrison
...La. 271, 97 So. 440, 33 A. L. R. 260), if anything, lends support to the foregoing view. The ruling in City of Shreveport v. Dickason, 160 La. 563, 107 So. 427, is not contrary to that view. In that case it appears that in a prior case between the same parties (158 La. 974, 105 So. 33) this......