Holmes v. United States
| Decision Date | 06 December 1920 |
| Docket Number | 3371. |
| Citation | 269 F. 489 |
| Parties | HOLMES v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Submitted October 13, 1920.
Appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.
Alex. H. Bell, Percy H. Marshall, and F. J. Rice, all of Washington, D.C. (Bell, Marshall & Rice, of Washington, D.C on the brief), for appellant.
J. E Laskey, U.S. Atty., and L. Randolph Mason, Sp. Asst. U.S Atty., both of Washington, D.C.
This is an appeal by the owner of a hotel building in this city from a decree in the Supreme Court of the District based upon the Act of February 7, 1914 (38 Stat. 280), 'to enjoin and abate houses of lewdness, assignation and prostitution,' appellant contending that the bill should have been dismissed as to him, because there was no averment that he had any knowledge, either actual or presumptive, of the alleged immoral acts.
The bill avers that Samuel Blackwell was the keeper of the hotel in question; that, while he 'so used and occupied the said building, erection, or place, certain acts of lewdness and prostitution were conducted, permitted, carried on, and did exist in and upon the same, as will more fully hereinafter appear'; that Blackwell 'did permit to use and occupy certain rooms of said building, erection, or place certain evil-disposed persons, and the said evil-disposed persons, on the days and at the times aforesaid, in said rooms, did commit acts of lewdness and prostitution'; that Holmes, the appellant, is the owner of the building 'so used and occupied as aforesaid as a hotel by the defendant Samuel Blackwell.' It is then averred that--
'On account of the acts and conditions hereinbefore set forth said defendant Samuel Blackwell and said defendant James Ottoway Holmes are guilty of a nuisance, and the said building, erection, or place is a nuisance, and the said furniture, fixtures, and other movable property used for the purpose aforesaid, in said building, erection, or place, are also a nuisance.'
The prayers of the bill are for the issuance of an injunction pendente lite, a permanent injunction against each defendant for the suppression of the nuisance, the removal and sale of all the furniture, fixtures, and other movable property used in conducting the nuisance, and for an order closing the hotel for one year.
A motion to dismiss was interposed by Holmes, upon the ground that the bill states no cause for relief in equity, for the reason that the act of Congress upon which the bill is based is unconstitutional and void, because it provides for the taking of his property without compensation, for the alleged acts of another who was not and is not his agent and which acts 'were committed without his knowledge, consent, privity, connivance, or control, and in respect where of said defendant has omitted no legal duty nor committed any wrong. ' The sufficiency of the complaint as to him is challenged, because it is not therein alleged that he had any knowledge of or in any way participated in the acts complained of. The motion was overruled, a permanent injunction was issued, closing the premises for a year, and ordering the sale of the 'fixtures, furniture, and other movable property' in the hotel, the proceeds to be applied to the payment of the costs.
The act in question provides that whoever shall own or occupy any building or place 'used for the purpose of lewdness, assignation or prostitution in the District of Columbia is guilty of a nuisance,' and the building or place in which such lewdness, assignation, or prostitution is conducted, permitted, or carried on, and the furniture, fixtures, musical instruments, and contents are also declared a nuisance. Section 2 provides that an action in equity may be maintained 'to enjoin said nuisance, the person or persons conducting or maintaining the same, and the owner or agent of the building or ground upon which said nuisance exists'; that the court may issue a temporary injunction on affidavits, depositions, oral testimony, or otherwise after three days' notice in writing to the defendant. Section 3 provides that the action when brought 'shall be triable at the first term of court, after due and timely service of the notice has been given, and in such action evidence of the general reputation of the place shall be admissible for the purpose of proving the existence of said nuisance.' Section 4 provides for the summary trial and punishment of a violator of the injunction. Section 5 provides:
'That if the existence of the nuisance be established in an action as provided in this act, or in a criminal proceeding, an order of abatement shall be entered as a part of the judgment in the case, which order shall direct the removal from the building or place of all fixtures, furniture, musical instruments, or movable property used in conducting the nuisance, and shall direct the sale thereof in the manner provided for the sale of chattels under execution, and the effectual closing of the building or place against its use for any purpose, and so keeping it closed for a period of one year, unless sooner released.'
Section 6 provides that the proceeds of sale shall be applied to the payment of costs; the balance, if any, to be paid the defendant. Section 7 permits the owner to file an approved bond in the full value of the property that he will immediately abate the nuisance and prevent the same from being established or kept within a period of one year, and the court, if satisfied of his good faith, may cancel the order of abatement as to the property. If, in an equity action, the bond is filed before judgment and order of abatement, 'the action shall be thereby abated as to said building only. ' Section 8 provides that upon the issuance of a permanent injunction against any person for maintaining such a nuisance as the act denounces, or against any owner or agent of the building kept or used for the prohibited purpose, there shall be assessed against the building and ground and against the person or persons maintaining the nuisance and the owner or agent of the premises, a tax of $300.
The bill in this case does not allege that Holmes either knew or had reason to know that 'certain evil-disposed persons * * * did commit acts of lewdness and prostitution' in the hotel owned by him and leased to Blackwell, nor are any facts averred from which such an inference reasonably might be drawn. It is alleged merely that Blackwell kept the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Sweeley v. Braun
... ... Dick, (Kan.) 92 ... P.2d 92; Lindsley v. Werner, (Colo.) 283 P. 534; ... Holmes v. United States, 269 F. 489, 12 A. L. R ... 427.) Also because the owner has a remedy under the ... ...
-
U.S. v. Wade
...have been issued in this case because they were without "guilty knowledge" of the illegal use of the property. In Holmes v. United States, 269 F. 489, 491 (App.D.C.1920), the D.C. Court of Appeals held that Congress could not have intended to subject citizens to an abatement order "unless h......
-
Carpenter v. State ex rel. Hains
... ... Ill.App. 141; People ex rel. Crowe v. Marshall, 262 ... Ill.App. 128; United States v. Thomas, D.C., 4 F.2d ... 857; Title Guarantee & Trust Co. v. United States, 9 ... note; Gaskins v. People, 84 Colo. 582, 272 P. 662, ... 63 A.L.R. 693, 698, note; Holmes v. United States, ... 50 App.D.C. 147, 269 F. 489, 12 A.L.R. 427, 431, note; ... Grosfield v ... ...
-
Carpenter v. State Ex Rel. Hains, 14370.
...121 A.L.R. 634, 642, note; Gaskins v. People, 84 Colo. 582, 272 P. 662, 63 A.L.R. 693, 698, note; Holmes v. United States, 50 App.D.C. 147, 269 F. 489, 12 A.L.R. 427, 431, note; Gros-field v. United States, 276 U.S. 494, 48 S. Ct. 329, 72 L.Ed. 670, 59 A.L.R. 620, 624, note. 4. A further co......