Eubank v. City of Richmond
| Decision Date | 02 December 1912 |
| Docket Number | No. 48,48 |
| Parties | J. E. EUBANK, Plff. in Err., v. CITY OF RICHMOND |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. S. S. P. Patteson for plaintiff in error.
Mr. H. R. Pollard for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 138-140 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the court:
In error to review a judgment of the hustings court of the city of Richmond, affirming firming a judgment of the police court of the city, imposing a fine of $25 on plaintiff in error for alleged violation of an ordinance of the city fixing a building line. The judgment was affirmed by the supreme court of the state. 110 Va. 749, 67 S. E. 376, 19 Ann. Cas. 186.
Plaintiff in error attacks the validity of the ordinance and the statute under which it was enacted on the ground that they infringe the Constitution of the United States, in that they deprive plaintiff in error of his property without due process of law, and deny him the equal protection of the laws.
The statute authorized the councils of cities and towns, among other things, 'to make regulations concerning the building of houses in the city or town, and in their discretion, . . . in particular districts or along particular streets, to prescribe and establish building lines, or to require property owners in certain localities or districts to leave a certain percentage of lots free from buildings and to regulate the height of buildings.' Acts of 1908, p. 623, 4.
By virtue of this act the city council passed the following ordinance: A fine of not less than $25 nor more than $500 is prescribed for a violation of the ordinance.
The facts are as follows: Plaintiff in error is the owner of a lot 33 feet wide on the south side of Grace street, between Twenty-eight and Twenty-ninth streets. He applied for and received a permit on the 19th of December, 1908, to build a detached brick building to be used for a dwelling, according to certain plans and specifications which had been approved by the building inspector, dimensions of the building to be 26x59x28 feet high.
On the 9th of January, 1909, the street committee being in session, two thirds of the property owners on the side of the square where plaintiff in error's lot is situated, petitioned for the establishment of a building line, and in accordance with the petition a resolution was passed establishing a building line on the line of a majority of the houses then erected, and the building inspector ordered to be notified. This was done, and plaintiff in error given notice that the line established was 'about fourteen (14) feet from the true line of the street, and on a line with the majority of the houses.' He was notified further that all portions of his house, 'including Octagon bay, must be set back to conform to' that line. Plaintiff in error appealed to the board of public safety, which sustained the building inspector.
At the time the ordinance was passed, the had been assembled, but no actual construction had been assembled, but no actual construction work had been done. The building conformed to the line, with the exception of the octagon bay window referred to above, which projected about 3 feet over the line.
The supreme court of the state sustained the statute, saying that it was neither 'unreasonable nor unusual,' and that the court was 'justified in concluding that it was passed by the legislature in good faith and in the interest of the health, safety, comfort, or convenience of the public, and for the benefit of the property owners generally who are affected by its provisions; and that the enactment tends to accomplish all, or, at least, some, of these objects.' The court further said that the validity of such legislation is generally recognized and upheld as an exercise of the police power.
Whether it is a valid exercise of the police power is a question in the case, and that power we have defined, as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ravitz v. Steurele
... ... possible. Commonwealth Life Ins. Co. v. City of ... Paducah, 244 Ky. 759, 52 S.W.2d 704; Shaw v ... Fox, 246 Ky. 343, 55 S.W.2d 11, 14; ... injury, but obstacles to a greater public welfare. Eubank ... v. Richmond, 226 U.S. 137, 142, 33 S.Ct. 76, 57 L.Ed ... 156, 158, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) ... ...
-
Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham
... ... 190; cf. Nash v. United States, 229 U.S. 373, 33 S.Ct. 780, 57 L.Ed. 1232--'restraint of trade' has an ascertainable common law meaning. Eubank v. City of Richmond, 226 U.S. 137, 33 S.Ct. 76, 57 L.Ed. 156; Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. State Highway Comm., 294 U.S. 613, 55 S.Ct. 563, 79 ... ...
-
Board of Appeals of Hanover v. Housing Appeals Committee in Dept. of Community Affairs
... ... ' Report of the Legislative Research Council relative to Restricting the Zoning Power to City and County Governments (the Report), 1968 Senate No. 1133, p. 28 ... Since the ... Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 390, 47 S.Ct. 114, 119, 71 L.Ed. 303. See Eubank v. Richmond, 226 U.S. 137, 144, 33 S.Ct. 76, 57 L.Ed. 156; Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160, 62 ... ...
-
Franklin v. Ellis
... ... St ... Rep. 555; State v. Williams, 146 N.C. 618, 17 L. R ... A. (N. S.) 299); Eubank v. Richmond, 226 U.S. 137 ... R. P ... Mitchell and Williams & Schmitt, for appellee ... People v. Board of Police, 75 N.Y. 38; White v. City ... Alameda (Cal.), 56 P. 795 ... Now, ... under these recognized definitions, can the ... ...
-
The Geography of Abortion Rights
...to spatial abortion restrictions, but those claims have rarely carried the day. 283. See supra notes 108–14 and accompanying text. 284. 226 U.S. 137 (1912). 285. Id. at 141, 144. 286. Id. at 142. 1132 THE GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 109:1081 owners may make of their property.”287 In partic......
-
How Many Times Was Lochner-era Substantive Due Process Effective? - Michael J. Phillips
...Amendment are wanting" under the challenged statute). 96. 272 U.S. 365, 386-97 (1926). 97. 277 U.S. 183 (1928). 98. Id. at 187-89. 99. 226 U.S. 137 (1912). 100. Id. at 143-44. 101. 278 U.S. 116 (1928). 102. Id. at 120-23. 103. 245 U.S. 60 (1917). 104. Id. at 74-82. 105. "[T]he power to fix ......
-
A REIGN OF ERROR: PROPERTY RIGHTS AND STARE DECISIS.
...v. Roberge, 278 U.S. 116,122 (1928)) (italics added). (121.) Spies, 169 N.E. at 222. (122.) 426 U.S. 668(1976). (123.) Id. at 670. (124.) 226 U.S. 137, 140 (1912) (invalidating a provision allowing two-thirds of property owners abutting a street to establish a "building line" with which fut......
-
Article I, Section 11: a Poor "plan B" for Washington's Religious Pharmacists
...legitimate from the illegitimate assumption of [the police] power is not capable of precise delimitation."); Eubank v. City of Richmond, 226 U.S. 137, 142 (1912) ("[The police power] is not susceptible of circumstantial 184. See Pretsel, Inc. v. Cnty. of King, 77 Wash. 2d 144, 154, 459 P.2d......