City of St. Louis v. Evraiff
Decision Date | 03 October 1923 |
Docket Number | No. 22412.,22412. |
Citation | 301 Mo. 231,256 S.W. 489 |
Parties | CITY OF ST. LOUIS v. EVRAIFF et al. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Action by the City of St. Louis against Morris Evraiff and others, to recover a penalty for violation of an ordinance. To review judgment discharging defendants, the city brings error. Affirmed.
Henry S. Caulfield and Geo. F. Haid, both of St. Louis, for plaintiff in error.
Karl Kimmel, of St. Louis, amicus curiæ.
Glendy B. Arnold, of St. Louis, and Edward M. Bassett, of New York City, for Chamber of Commerce of city of St. Louis.
E. M. Harber, of Excelsior Springs, and John B. Pew, City Counselors, and E. F. Halstead, Asst. City Counselor, both of Kansas City, for Kansas City.
D. D. Holmes, of St. Louis, for city of Richmond Heights.
J. E. Turner, of St. Louis, for University City.
This is an action to recover the penalty prescribed for the violation of certain sections of Ordinance No. 3199 of the city of St. Louis, approved July 15, 1918, known as the "Zoning" ordinance, which prohibits, inter alia, the erection or use of property for the storage of scrap iron, rags, and junk in industrial districts, and permits the establishment and operation thereof in unrestricted districts. The evidence shows that defendants, about October 1, 1918, established and conducted a rag and junk yard at Nos. 2026 and 2028 O'Fallon street, a densely populated section within the industrial district established by the ordinance. The court sustained a demurrer to the evidence on the ground that the ordinance is not authorized by any statute or law of the state and is unreasonable and violative of various sections of the federal and state Constitutions. From the judgment discharging the defendants, the city appealed. Section 2 of the ordinance divides the city into five districts, first residence, second residence, commercial, industrial, and unrestricted districts. The boundaries of the several districts are shown upon a map made a part of the ordinance. The industrial district comprises a little more than one square mile of territory within the city limits. It extends westward from Third street, and, speaking generally, is bisected by Washington avenue, one of the principal streets of the city. Section 3 provides that the use of all buildings and premises at the time of the adoption of the ordinance may be continued. Section 8 provides that no land or building in the industrial district shall be erected or used for about 50 specified trades, industries, or uses, including "scrap iron, junk or rags storage or baling." Section 31 provides that any violation of the provisions of the ordinance shall be deemed a misdemeanor, and subject the offender to a fine of not less than $5 nor more than $500 for each offense. Each day that a violation is permitted to exist shall constitute a separate offense.
The charter of the city of St. Louis provides that it shall have power:
The city of St. Louis is authorized to frame a charter "in harmony with and subject to the Constitution and laws of Missouri." Section 20, art. 9, Constitution. Its charter and ordinances must be subject to and in harmony with the Constitution and laws of the state. St. Louis v. Meyer, 185 Mo. 583, 84 S. W. 914; St. Louis v. Williams, 235 Mo. 503, 508, 139 S. W. 340; State ex rel. v. Jost, 265 Mo. 51, 72, 175 S. W. 591, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 1102; 28 Cyc. 351 (6).
It is insisted by the appellant and denied by the respondents that in the exercise of the police power of the state the city has the power to enact the ordinance in question, and to exclude the designated lines of business from the industrial district. Appellant's counsel say:
In other words, a business is unlawful, not because it is a nuisance, but because it is prohibited.
In Lincoln Trust Co. v. Williams Building Corporation, 229 N. Y. 313, 128 N. E. 209, an ordinance of the city of New York dividing the city into a residence district, a business district, and an unrestricted district was held to be within the police power of the city. In Reinman v. Little Rock, 237 U. S. 171, 35 Sup. Ct. 511, 59 L. Ed. 900, the city of Little Rock, by ordinance, prohibited the maintenance of livery stables within a limited district described in the ordinance. Plaintiffs sued to restrain the enforcement of the ordinance. The opinion recites:
Justice Pitney, 237 U. S. loc. cit. 180, 35 Sup. Ct. 514, 59 L. Ed. 900, in affirming the judgment of the state court which reversed the judgment of the trial court, said:
In City of St. Louis v. Fischer, 167 Mo. 654, 664, 67 S. W. 872, 875 (64 L. R. A. 679, 99 Am. St. Rep. 614), we said:
In the Slaughter House Cases, 83 U. S. (16 Wall.) 36 loc. cit. 62 (21 L. Ed. 394), Justice Miller said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Turner v. Kansas City
...S.W. 331; State ex rel. Penrose Inv. Co. v. McKelvey, 256 S.W. 474; State ex rel. Better Home Co. v. McKelvey, 256 S.W. 495; St. Louis v. Evraiff, 256 S.W. 489. (11) The ordinance is not separable. It is bound together in a series of closely connected phrases forming a single sentence. If i......
-
City of Clayton v. Nemours
...to use such private way for more than ten years. Collier Estate v. Paving & Supply Co., 180 Mo. 362, 387, 388. (21) St. Louis v. Evraiff, 301 Mo. 231, 256 S.W. 489; State v. McKelvey, 301 Mo. 1, 256 S.W. 474; St. Louis v. Dreisoerner, 243 Mo. 217; Heisey v. Mexico, 61 Mo. App. 248. (22) Sec......
-
Women's Kansas City St. Andrew Soc. v. Kansas City, Mo.
...but the law does not allow æsthetic taste to control private property, under the guise of police power." In City of St. Louis v. Evraiff, 301 Mo. 231, 256 S. W. 489, 495, the Supreme Court of Missouri held invalid a zoning ordinance of the city of St. Louis. The court there said: "Regulatio......
-
City of Bismarck, a Municipal Corporation v. Hughes
...... . . In the. case of State ex rel. Penrose Invest. Co. v. McKelvey, 301 Mo. 1, 256 S.W. 474, and St. Louis v. Evraiff, 301 Mo. 231, 256 S.W. 489, the supreme court of. Missouri holds that the state cannot empower a city to. prohibit by ordinance the ......