McCulloch v. Ayer

• Decision Date: 30 June 1899
• Docket Number: 24,946.
• Citation: 96 F. 178
• Parties: McCULLOCH v. AYER.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

96 F. 178

McCULLOCH v. AYER.

No. 24,946.

United States Circuit Court, N.D. Illinois, Northern Division.

June 30, 1899

Follansbee & Follansbee, for plaintiff.

Smoot &amp Eyer, for defendant.

KOHLSAAT District Judge.

The decision of this case depends upon the construction to be given to the provisions of the statute of this state relating to fire escapes, in force July 1, 1897. The fee to the real estate, upon which was situated the building where the fire in question occurred, was in some person not named in this record. A 99-year lease of the real estate was given in 1886. A seven-story building was erected thereon by the lessee. A sublease for 10 years was made on the entire premises in 1890, and in 1895 defendant, Ayer, acquired the 99-year lease subject to this 10-year lease, at the same time taking an assignment of the lessor's interest in the latter. At the time of the fire the holder of the 10-year lease was in sole possession and control of the entire premises by itself or its subtenants. It is admitted that there is not common-law liability for failure to provide fire escapes. It must follow that the wording of a statute imposing this liability must be clear and explicit. Such a statute must be strictly construed. Section 1 of the statute in question provides that within three months next after the passage thereof certain designated buildings shall be provided with fire escapes, and that the number, location, material, and construction of such fire escapes shall be subject to the approval of the inspector of factories. This section contains a proviso that certain classes of buildings (including those used for manufacturing purposes) shall have a certain number of fire escapes, proportioned to the number of persons employed in such buildings. Section 2 has reference to buildings erected after the passage of the act. Section 3 makes it the duty of the inspector of factories to serve written notice upon either or any of certain parties having an interest in the respective buildings (including owners, occupants, and lessees), wherever the building shall not be provided with fire escapes according to law, commanding such person or persons served to cause to be erected fire escapes as provided in section 1, within 30 days after service of such notice. Section 4 provides a penalty for failure to comply with such notice. Section 5 provides that the erection of all fire escapes shall be under the direct supervision and control of the inspector of factories, and makes it unlawful for any person to erect fire escapes except in accordance with a written permit first obtained from such inspector prescribing the number, location, material, kind, and manner of construction. Section 6 provides that any person who shall be required to erect fire escapes under the provisions of the act shall make a written application to the inspector of factories for a permit, which application shall contain certain information prescribed in said section. Section 7 repeals the former act. Plaintiff is practically suing under section 1 of the act. This section declares what buildings shall be provided with fire escapes, and the method of determining the minimum number of proportion to the number of persons...