Harris v. City of Louisville

Decision Date18 June 1915
Citation165 Ky. 559,177 S.W. 472
PartiesHARRIS v. CITY OF LOUISVILLE. BUCHANAN v. WARLEY.
CourtKentucky Court of Appeals

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Criminal Division.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Chancery Branch, First Division.

Arthur Harris was convicted of violating an ordinance of the City of Louisville, and he appeals. Action by C. H. Buchanan against William Warley. Decree for the defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Appeals heard together, and judgments affirmed.

Logan N. Rock and W. H. Wright, both of Louisville, for appellant Harris.

Blakey Quin & Lewis, of Louisville, for appellant Buchanan.

Stuart Chevalier and Pendleton Beckley, both of Louisville, for appellees.

HANNAH J.

These two appeals involve a common question--the validity of the following ordinance enacted by the council of the city of Louisville:

"An ordinance to prevent conflict and ill-feeling between the white and colored races in the city of Louisville, and to preserve the public peace and promote the general welfare by making reasonable provisions requiring, as far as practicable, the use of separate blocks for residences places of abode and places of assembly by white and colored people respectively.

Be it ordained by the general council of the city of Louisville:

Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any colored person to move into and occupy as a residence, place of abode, or to establish and maintain as a place of public assembly, any house upon any block upon which a greater number of houses are occupied as residences, places of abode, or places of public assembly, by white people than are occupied as residences, places of abode or places of public assembly by colored people.

Sec. 2. It shall be unlawful for any white person to move into and occupy as a residence, place of abode, or to establish and maintain as a place of public assembly, any house upon any block upon which a greater number of houses are occupied as residences, places of abode, or places of public assembly by colored people than are occupied as residences, places of abode or places of public assembly by white people.

Sec. 3. The word 'block' as the same is used in this ordinance shall be construed to mean that portion of any street or public alley upon both sides of the same between two adjacent intersecting or crossing streets or public alleys, or between such streets or alleys, if extended. In determining the boundary of any given block for the purpose of complying with the provisions of this ordinance, there shall be taken as a basis of measuring the length of such block, the space between the intersecting streets or public alleys on that side of the street or alley on which the house numbers are even, if that side of the street be divided into blocks; otherwise, the block on the opposite side shall be taken as the basis. A 'residence' or 'place of abode' or 'place of public assembly' shall be counted in that block on which it faces and has its main entrance.

Sec. 4. Nothing in this ordinance shall affect the location of residences, places of abode or places of public assembly made previous to the approval of this ordinance, and nothing herein shall be so construed as to prevent the occupation of residences, places of abode or places of public assembly, by white or colored servants or employés of occupants of such residences, places of abode or places of public assembly on the block on which they are so employed; nor shall anything herein contained be construed to prevent any person who, at the date of the passage of this ordinance, shall have acquired or possessed the right to occupy any building as a residence, place of abode or place of assembly, from exercising such a right. Nor shall anything herein contained prevent the owner of any building now leased, rented or occupied as a residence, place of abode or place of public assembly for colored persons, from continuing to rent, lease or occupy such residence, place of abode or place of public assembly for such persons, if the owner shall so desire; but, if such house should after the passage of this act, be at any time leased, rented or occupied as a residence, place of abode or place of assembly for white persons, it shall not thereafter be used for colored persons, if such occupation would then be a violation of section one hereof. Nor shall anything herein contained prevent the owner of any building now leased, rented or occupied as a residence, place of abode or place of assembly for white persons, from continuing to rent, lease or occupy such residence, place of abode or place of assembly for such purpose, if the owner shall so desire; but if such house should, after the passage of this act, be at any time leased, rented or occupied as a residence, place of abode or place of assembly for colored persons, it shall not thereafter be so used for white persons, if such occupation would then be a violation of section two hereof.

Sec. 5. Any person intending to build or erect for himself, or as agent for another, any building to be used as a residence, place of abode or place of public assembly, upon property situated on a block on which there are no buildings used as a residence, place of abode or place of public assembly, shall in the application for a permit to the building inspector, declare for what purpose said proposed building for which the permit is asked, is to be used, whether as a residence or place of abode or place of public assembly for white persons or for colored persons. Upon the filing of said application, the building inspector shall, as soon as practicable thereafter, cause to be published twice a week for two successive weeks in one German and in one English daily paper of the city of Louisville, and at the cost of said applicant, the fact that a building of the character described is proposed to be built at the place indicated in the permit and to be used or occupied as a residence, place of abode or place of public assembly, as the case may be, for white or colored people; and he shall cause to be posted at some convenient place on or near the lot where such building is proposed to be erected a similar statement; and unless within five days after the date of the last publication thereof, protest be made in writing to the building inspector by those owning more than fifty per cent. of the foot frontage of said block against the use mentioned in said application, the permit desired shall, if in other respects said application be in conformity with the ordinances of the city, be granted. Thereafter, all buildings erected for residences, places of abode or places of public assembly on said block, and all buildings erected on said block for other purposes, but which it may be desired thereafter to use as residences, places of abode or places of public assembly, shall be so used either for white persons or for colored persons respectively, as may be determined by the permit granted in the manner hereinabove provided. If, however, the owners of more than fifty per cent. of the foot frontage on said block in which the proposed building is to be erected and for which a permit is asked shall protest against such building in the manner above provided, then in such case no permit shall be issued on said application for the erection of a building for the use set out therein. Whenever a protest is filed under the provisions of this ordinance, those signing the protest shall state the exact number of feet of their respective property that front on the block in question, and each signature to such protest shall be acknowledged before a notary public; and any signature not so acknowledged shall be disregarded by the building inspector.

The provisions of this ordinance are intended to provide a method by which a block which is vacant may be improved and by which its use for either white persons or colored persons may be determined, but shall not be construed to abridge unlawfully any constitutional right which any owner of property may possess to use or occupy his property, subject to reasonable police regulations.

Sec. 6. No person shall be granted a permit by the building inspector for the construction of any house or other building intended to be used as a residence, as a place of abode, or as a place of public assembly, unless he state in his application for a permit whether the house or building to be constructed is designed to be occupied or used by white or colored people; and if upon the completion of said building or any time thereafter, the owner shall permit said building to be occupied in any manner other than as stated in said application, he shall at once file with the building inspector an affidavit stating the change in the manner of use or occupancy. Whenever the use or occupancy of any building as a residence, place of abode or place of assembly for white or colored people, whether erected before or after the passage of this ordinance, is changed from white to colored, or from colored to white, after the passage of this ordinance, the owner of said building shall at once file with the building inspector a sworn statement of such change. If the owner of any building used or occupied as a residence, place of abode or place of assembly, shall permit its use or occupation before there is a compliance with the provisions of this section, he shall be fined for each day of such use or occupation, not less than five dollars nor more than fifty dollars. But no permit issued by the building inspector shall authorize any person to use or occupy any property in violation of any section of this ordinance.

Sec. 7. It shall be the duty of the building inspector as soon as practicable after the passage of this ordinance, to prepare and preserve for inspection...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Hopkins v. City Of Richmond
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • 9 Septiembre 1915
    ...1087, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 957; State v. Darnell, 166 N. C. 300, 81 S. E. 338; Carey v. City of Atlanta (Ga.) 84 S. E. 456; Harris v. City of Louisville (Ky.) 177 S. W. 472. In each of the first three of these cases the particular ordinance involved was declared invalid, and in the last one its......
  • Jones, Chief Safety Inspector v. Russell
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • 8 Mayo 1928
    ...v. Blizzard, 143 Ky. 773, 137 S.W. 509, 34 L.R.A. (N.S.) 890; Lampton, etc., v. Wood, 199 Ky. 250, 250 S.W. 980; Harris v. City of Louisville, 165 Ky. 559, 177 S.W. 472, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 149; Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60, 38 S. Ct. 16, 62 L. Ed. 149, L.R.A. 1918C, 210, Ann. Cas. 1918A, A......
  • Koehler v. Rowland
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 30 Julio 1918
    ... ... Worley, 165 Ky. 559, 177 S.W. 472; ... State v. Gurry, 121 Md. 534; Keltner v ... Harris, 196 S.W. 1. (2) That conditions in the ... neighborhood may have changed is wholly immaterial ... Wirtman Place, an addition to Kansas City. The plaintiff ... Elizabeth Koehler and her brother, George Wirtman, were at ... one time owners ... ...
  • Tyler v. Harmon
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • 2 Marzo 1925
    ... ... Winn Wright, of New Orleans, for appellant ... Ivy G ... Kittredge, City Atty., of New Orleans, amicus curiae ... Loys ... Charbonnet, F. F. Teissier, and F. B ... Warley the ... court found, as a fact, that the ordinance of the city of ... Louisville, which the court declared violative of the ... Fourteenth Amendment, forbade a white person to ... * *; Missouri, * * *; Kansas. * * *" ... See, ... also, Harris v. Louisville, 165 Ky. 559, 177 S.W ... 472, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 149; Hopkins v. Richmond, 117 ... ...
  • 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