George Hote v. City Ofne Orleans
Citation | 44 L. R. A. 90,44 L.Ed. 899,20 S.Ct. 788,177 U.S. 587 |
Decision Date | 14 May 1900 |
Docket Number | No. 204,204 |
Parties | GEORGE L'HOTE and the Church Extension Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church, Plffs. in Err. , v. CITY OFNE W ORLEANS et al |
Court | United 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:
By ordinance No. 13,485, council series of the city of New Orleans, approved July 7th, 1897, it was ordained:
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 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-
Ballard v. Mississippi Cotton Oil Co.
... ... 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.
...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.
... ... 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
...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......
-
REPUGNANT PRECEDENTS AND THE COURT OF HISTORY.
...(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.
...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.
...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.
...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. ......