City of St. Louis v. Nash
Decision Date | 06 January 1916 |
Citation | 181 S.W. 1145,266 Mo. 523 |
Parties | CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Plaintiff in Error, v. NICHOLAS NASH |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to St. Louis City Court of Criminal Correction. -- Hon Benjamin F. Clark, Judge.
Reversed and remanded (with directions).
William E. Baird and Truman P. Young for plaintiff in error.
The structure erected by the defendant is a building within the definition of the Building Code of the city of St. Louis and within the general legal interpretation placed upon the word "building." Revised Code of St. Louis, sec. 336; Blakemore v. Stanley, 33 N.E. 689; Nowell v Boston Academy, 130 Mass. 209; Killman v State, 28 Am. Rep. 432; Favre v. State, 73 Am. St. 953; Williams v. State, 70 Am. St. 82; Kansas v. Poole, 65 Kan. 713; People v. Steckman, 34 Cal. 242.
Taylor R. Young and Edward W. Forristel for defendant in error.
(1) Sections 341 and 505, R. O. City of St. Louis 1912, were never intended to prevent the erection and maintenance of a tent, such as the evidence in this case shows the defendant was erecting at the time he was charged with violating said sections. Childress Seashore v. Atlantic City, 59 L. R. A. (N. J.) 947; Coddington v. Beebe, 31 N. J. L. 477; Allen v. Ayre, 3 Dow & R. 96; Trust Co. v. Cameron I. & C. Co., 47 F. 136; Callahan v. State, 41 Tex. 43; State v. Barr, 39 Conn. 44; Rouse v. Catskill, 13 N.Y.S. 123-127; Tuesdell v. Gray, 79 Mass. 311; Hawaii v. Manchiki, 190 U.S. 197; Century Dictionary, pp. 712, 6234; Bouvier's Law Dictionary, p. 268; 1 Oxford's Dictionary, p. 1162; Anderson's Law Dictionary, p. 139; 6 Cyc. 115 (2) Even though said sections were intended to apply, they are so unreasonable as to be void under the decisions of this court. Kelley v. Meeks, 87 Mo. 396; Corrigan v. Gage, 68 Mo. 541; St. Louis v. Weber, 44 Mo. 547; Tarkio v. Cook, 120 Mo. 1. (3) The Municipal Assembly of the city of St. Louis, has no power to prevent by ordinance the use of property so as to prevent a tent of the character in question here from being constructed upon and operated in connection with the use of such property. Clause 12, sec. 26, art. 3, Charter, City of St. Louis.
This is a case growing out of the prosecution of defendant in error for an alleged violation of an ordinance of the city of St. Louis. Being cast in the police court and likewise in the Court of Criminal Correction to which it appealed, the city brings the case here by writ of error. Since, throughout, no change has occurred in the parties, we will for clarity's sake refer to them as the plaintiff and the defendant, respectively.
The section of the city ordinances which the complaint alleges that defendant violated, reads thus:
(Here follows a description of the fire limits.)
When the case reached the Court of Criminal Correction a motion to quash the complaint was filed by defendant, but action thereon was deferred by the learned judge nisi till he had heard the case on the merits. Thereupon the case was presented below upon agreed facts, which the court heard and thereafter entered an order quashing the complaint. Therefore, though we follow the language of the court nisi in stating that the motion to quash was sustained, it is plain that the case was actually heard and decided on the merits.
The agreed facts are lengthy; but since in the view we take of the controversy, alone, the method of the construction and physical nature of the structure erected and used by defendant is important, we will not burden the statement of the case with more of the facts than will but suffice to illuminate this single point. Specifically, defendant was prosecuted for erecting and using as a moving-picture theatre, a certain structure which plaintiff contends violated the provisions of the section of the city ordinances which we quote above. The erection and use of the structure within the fire-limits were admitted. It is therefore manifest that the whole case turns on the nature of the structure so erected by defendant. The agreed facts thus describe the materials of which it was constructed, the manner of construction thereof and the purposes for which it was used, viz.:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wagner v. City of St Louis
... ... 523; Joplin v. Jacobs, 119 ... Mo.App. 134; Clinton v. Phillips, 58 Ill. 102; ... State v. Vanderslaus, 42 Minn. 131. (3) The ... ordinance involved is invalid because it is unreasonable ... St. Louis v. Dreisoerner, 243 Mo. 224; Carthage ... v. Block, 139 Mo.App. 391; St. Louis v. Nash, ... 266 Mo. 523; Tarkio v. Cook, 120 Mo. 1; Long v ... Taxing District, 7 Lea (Tenn.) 134; Sallsbury v ... Equitable Purchasing Co., 177 Ky. 348; Ex parte ... Goldberg, 200 S.W. 386; Hayes v. City of Appleton, ... 24 Wis. 542; Lane v. Concord, 70 N.H. 485; ... People v. Armstrong, 2 L. R ... ...
-
State ex rel. Moore v. Julian
... ... dispute involving the employees of the municipally owned bus ... system of the City of Springfield. The Board has jurisdiction ... and does not have discretion to withhold its ... 285, ... 50 N.E.2d 76, 147 A.L.R. 830; St. Louis v. Nash, 266 ... Mo. 523, 181 S.W. 1145; Singer Sewing Machine Co. v ... State Unemployment ... ...
-
City of Ames v. Gerbracht
... ... A few ... illustrative cases may be of assistance ... In ... City of St. Louis v. Nash , 266 Mo. 523 (181 S.W ... 1145), it was held that a moving picture building properly ... came within a regulation as to fire limits ... ...