George Hote v. City Ofne Orleans

Citation44 L. R. A. 90,44 L.Ed. 899,20 S.Ct. 788,177 U.S. 587
Decision Date14 May 1900
Docket NumberNo. 204,204
PartiesGEORGE L'HOTE and the Church Extension Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church, Plffs. in Err. , v. CITY OFNE W ORLEANS et al
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

By ordinance No. 13,032, council series, approved January 29th, 1897, it was ordained by the common council of the city of New Orleans:

'That from the first of October, 1897, it shall be unlawful for any public prostitute or woman notoriously abandoned to lewdness to occupy, inhabit, live, or sleep in any house, room, or closet, situated without the following limits: South side of Custom House street from Basin to Robertson street, east side of Robertson street from Custom House to St. Louis street, south side of St. Louis street from Robertson to Basin street. Provided, That no lewd woman shall be permitted to occupy a house, room, or closet on St. Louis street. Provided further, That nothing herein shall be so construed as to authorize any lewd woman to occupy a house, room, or closet in any portion of the city. § 2. That it shall be unlawful for any person or persons, whether agent or owner, to rent, lease, or hire any house, building, or room to any woman or girl notoriously abandoned to lewdness or for immoral purposes outside the limits specified in section 1 of this ordinance. § 3. That public prostitutes or notoriously lewd and abandoned women are forbidden to stand upon the sidewalks in front of or near the premises they may occupy, or at the alleyway, door, or gate of such premises, or to occupy the steps thereof, or to accost, call, or stop any person passing by, or to walk up and down the sidewalks, or to walk up the city streets indecently attired, or in other respects so as to behave in public as to occasion scandal, or disturb and offend the peace and good morals of the people. § 4. That it shall not be lawful for any lewd women to frequent any cabaret or coffee house or bar room and to diink therein. § 5. That it shall be unlawful for any party or parties to establish or carry on a house of prostitution or assignation without the limits specified in section—of this ordinance. § 6. That wherever a house of prostitution or assignation within or without the limits established by this ordinance may become dangerous to public morals, either from the manner in which it is conducted or the character of the neighborhood in which it is situated, the mayor may, on such facts coming to his knowledge, order the occupants of such house, building, or room to remove therefrom within a delay of five days, by service of notice on such occupants in person, or by posting the notice on the door of the house, building, or room, to remove therefrom within a delay of five days, and upon such occupants failing to do so, each shall be punished as provided in section—of this ordinance. § 7. That in the event that the occupants of such house, building, or room referred to in section 6 do not remove therefrom after the infliction of the penalty, the mayor is authorized to close the same and to place a policeman at the door of such premises to warn away all such parties who shall undertake to enter. § 8. That any person or persons who shall violate the provisions of this ordinance, or who shall disturb the tranquilluty of the neighborhood or commit a breach of the peace, shall be punished by the recorder having jurisdiction, for the first offense by a fine not exceeding $5, and in default of payment by imprisonment not exceeding ten for the second offense by a fine not exceeding $10, and in default of payment by imprisonment not exceeding twenty days, and for any subsequent offense by a fine not exceeding $25, and indefault of payment by imprisonment not exceeding thirty days. § 9. That each day any person or persons shall continue to violate the provisions of this ordinance shall constitute a sepaat e offense. § 10. That on and from the day this ordinance takes effect all ordinances in conflict therewith be and the same are hereby repealed, provided that nothing herein contained shall affect ordinance 12,456, C. S., relative to prostitutes in the fifth district.'

By ordinance No. 13,485, council series of the city of New Orleans, approved July 7th, 1897, it was ordained: 'That section 1 of ordinance 13,032, C. S., be and the same is hereby amended as follows: From and after the 1st of October, 1897, it shall be unlawful for any public prostitute or woman notoriously abandoned to lewdness to occupy, inhabit, live, or sleep in any house, room, or closet situate without the following limits viz.: 1. From the south side of Custom House street to the north side of St. Louis street, and from the lower or wood side of North Basin street to the lower or wood side of Robertson street. 2. And from the upper side of Perdido street to the lower side of Gravier street, and from the river side of Franklin street to the lower or wood side of Locust street, provided that nothing, herein shall be so construed as to authorize any lewd woman to occupy a house, room, or closet in any portion of the city. Be it further ordained, That section 1 of ordinance 13,032, C. S., as amended above, be and the same is hereby re-enacted.'

The above ordinance being in force, the plaintiff in error George L'Hote, a resident, citizen, and taxpayer of New Orleans, brought this action in the civil district court for the parish of Orleans against the city of New Orleans, its mayor and superintendent of police, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, who might intervene and bear their proportion of costs and expenses. The object of the suit was to obtain a decree enjoining and prohibiting the defendants from in any manner enforcing ordinance No. 13,032 as amended by section 1 of ordinance No. 13,485.

The bill alleged that the plaintiff was the owner of property situated in the square bounded by St. Louis, Franklin, Treme, and Toulouse streets in the second district of the city of New Orleans, and resided with his wife and children in that square at No. 522 Treme street; that the chief and principal way of approach to his residence, and for ingress and egress thereto, was in, through, and from St. Louis street; that the locality in which he resided was, at the commencement of the action, and had always been, used for private residences, schools, groceries, and other mercantile establishments; that the people residing in that locality were then and had always been moral, virtuous, sober, law-abiding, and peaceful; that the locality referred to was not then and never had been dedicated to immoral purposes or used for dwelling places and as the refuge of public prostitutes, lewd and abandoned women and the necessary attendants thereof, drunkards, idle, vicious, and disorderly persons, who gather around them to gratify their depraved appetites, and who were regarded as dangerous to the peace and welfare of the community, their presence at any place being always a just cause of alarm and apprehension;

That the above ordinances were unconstitutional, illegal, unreasonable, and oppressive, and would, if executed, work irreparable injury, wrong, and damage to the plaintiff;

That the council in enacting those ordinances pretended to have acted under and by virtue of the power conferred upon them in § 15 of act No. 45, approved July 7th, 1896, 'to regulate the police of houses of prostitution and assignation and to close such houses in certain limits, and shall have the power to exclude the same, and to authorize the mayor and police to close said places;' and

That the enforcement of those ordinances in the manner provided for violated the provisions both of the Constitution of the United States and of the state, and would deprive the plaintiff of his property without due process of law, and amount to a taking or damaging of such property for public purposes without jst and adequate compensation being first paid.

The bill further alleged that 'the introduction of public prostitutes, women notoriously abandoned to lewdness, in said locality, authorizing them to occupy, inhabit, live, and sleep in houses and rooms situated therein, will materially lessen and depreciate the value of your petitioner's property, render his dwelling and the dwelling of his neighbors similarly situated unfit for the occupancy of private families, destroy the morals, peace, and good order of the neighborhood, drive out and turn away the lawabiding, virtuous citizens and their families from said locality, and dedicate the same to public and private nuisances per se, contrary to law and good morals;'

That 'the common council of the city of New Orleans had previously designated the limits within which prostitutes and women notoriously abandoned to lewdness should inhabit and live, and had thereby exhausted whatever power was vested in them by legislature of the stae and were without legal right to alter, change, or modify the same to the injury, detriment, and damage of your petitioner and others residing in said locality, which said council have attempted to include within said limits; that, having so exhausted the authority conferred upon them by the legislature, the said council was without power to capriciously change the limits previously established by them; that the avocations plied by public prostitutes and women notoriously abandoned to lewdness are contra bonos mores, and the said common council of the city of New Orleans have no right, power, or authority to legalize the same and to permit such persons to reside in the said vicinity in which your petitioner and others dwell with their families;'

That 'there was no good and sufficient reason for the enactment of said ordinance or the changing of the limits previously existing and established;'

That 'said council, in enacting said ordinance No. 13,485, council series, eliminated and excluded a large area of the city which had been previously dedicated to the occupancy of lewd and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
86 cases
  • Ballard v. Mississippi Cotton Oil Co.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • April 27, 1903
    ... ... R. N ... Miller and Campbell & George, for appellants ... This ... case has been ... To the same effect is the case of ... L' Hote v. New Orleans, 177 U.S. 587 (20 S.Ct ... 788; 44 L. , 899), that a city ordinance was within ... legislative discretion which ... ...
  • State v. Parker Distilling Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 3, 1911
    ...Cooley on Constitutional Limitations (6th Ed.) p. 591; Cooley on Constitutional Limitations (3d Ed.) p. 727; L'Hote v. New Orleans, 177 U. S. 596, 20 Sup. Ct. 788, 44 L. Ed. 899; Crowley v. Christensen, 137 U. S. 86, 11 Sup. Ct. 13, 34 L. Ed. When we bear in mind the foregoing idea that the......
  • Stoll v. Pacific Coast S.S. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington
    • April 28, 1913
    ... ... 889, 107 Am.St.Rep. 798; ... Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97, 24 L.Ed. 616; ... Chicago, etc., R.R. v ... States. Cotting v. Kansas City Stock Yards Co. (Cotting v ... Godard) 183 U.S. 79, 22 ... 180, 17 Sup.Ct. 282, 41 ... L.Ed. 677; L'Hote v. New Oreleans, 177 U.S. 587, ... 20 Sup.Ct. 788, 44 ... ...
  • Ex Parte Peede
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • October 14, 1914
    ...164, 169; Rosenthal v. New York, 226 U. S. 260, 270, 33 Sup. Ct. 27, 57 L. Ed. 212, 216, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 71; L'Hote v. New Orleans, 177 U. S. 587, 20 Sup. Ct. 788, 44 L. Ed. 899. See, further, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Melton, 218 U. S. 36, 30 Sup. Ct. 676, 54 L. Ed. 921, 47 L. R. A. (N. S......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • REPUGNANT PRECEDENTS AND THE COURT OF HISTORY.
    • United States
    • Michigan Law Review Vol. 121 No. 4, February 2023
    • February 1, 2023
    ...(The Chinese Exclusion Case), 130 U.S. 581, 606 (1889). (13.) Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U.S. 197, 220 (1923). (14.) L'Hote v. New Orleans, 177 U.S. 587, 595, 597 (15.) Halter v. Nebraska, 205 U.S. 34,43 (1907). (16.) Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328, 330 (1916). For a fuller catalogue of ethica......
  • JUDICIAL MORAL PROPHECY.
    • United States
    • Washington University Law Review Vol. 101 No. 1, August 2023
    • August 1, 2023
    ...U.S. 299, 303 (1896) (concluding that states may imprison any of their residents who choose to labor on Sunday); L'Hote v. New Orleans, 177 U.S. 587, 595, 597 (1900) (holding that women "of lewd character" may be confined to residential ghettos); Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U.S. 197, 220 (1923......
  • FROM "SIT AND WAIT" TO "PROACTIVE REGULATION": A MODEL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY.
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 53 No. 1, January 2023
    • January 1, 2023
    ...U.S. 540, 616 (1840) (Baldwin, J., concurring). (48) Village of Euclid. 272 U.S. 365, 389-90 (1926). (49) L'Hote v. City of New Orleans, 177 U.S. 587, 595-96 (50) Beer Co. v. Massachusetts, 97 U.S. 25. 33 (1878). (51) Sax, supra note 35, at 36 n.6. (52) U.S. CONST, amend. V. (53) Sackett Br......
  • Justice David Josiah Brewer and the "Christian nation" maxim.
    • United States
    • Albany Law Review Vol. 63 No. 2, December 1999
    • December 22, 1999
    ...v. Massachusetts, 167 U.S. 43, 48 (1897) (holding the City of Boston could appropriately regulate the use of the "Boston Common"). (330) 177 U.S. 587 (331) See id. at 595 (noting the statute prescribed limits in the city "outside of which no woman of lewd character shall dwell"). (332) Id. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT