Meyers v. Houghton

• Decision Date: 13 July 1917
• Docket Number: Nos. 20,401-(219).,s. 20,401-(219).
• Parties: SIMON MEYERS v. JAMES G. HOUGHTON.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

137 Minn. 481

SIMON MEYERS v. JAMES G. HOUGHTON.¹

Nos. 20,401-(219).

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 13, 1917.

Upon the relation of Simon Meyers, the district court for Hennepin county granted its alternative writ of mandamus directed to James G. Houghton, as inspector of buildings for the city of Minneapolis, to grant to relator a building permit to construct the additions and improvements in the building described in the petition or show cause why he had not done so. The respondent made answer setting up the city ordinance quoted in the opinion. The matter was heard before Molyneaux, J., who made findings and quashed the writ. Relator's motion for a new trial was denied. From the judgment entered pursuant to the order for judgment, relator appealed. Reversed.

Cohen, Atwater & Shaw, for appellant.

C. D. Gould and R. S. Wiggin, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Mandamus to compel the respondent, the building inspector of Minneapolis, to issue to the relator a permit for the construction of a building. From a judgment for the respondent the relator appeals.

The relator is the owner of a partially completed building within a district designated residential by the ordinances of Minneapolis. The former owner, from whom he purchased, commenced the construction of a four family flat building, but left it unfinished. Upon purchasing the relator made application for a permit for the improvement of the building. By an ordinance he was required to state the purpose for which the building was designed to be used and he stated it as follows: "For your further information I will state that I do not intend to occupy the premises in person, but to rent the same as a factory or for any lawful business purpose, provided I can find a tenant therefor, as I have none in view at this time." The permit was refused upon the ground that the ordinance prohibited a factory in a residential district.

Section 1 of the ordinance provides as follows: "That for the purposes of this ordinance the following buildings, business occupations, industries and enterprises are designated as business industries or buildings and classified as follows." Then follow 16 classes. Certain territory is designated as industrial districts and other territory as residential. The relator's property is in residential district No. 1. After defining its limits the ordinance provides: "No person shall hereafter construct any business building, nor conduct or maintain any business industries within such district, except those enumerated in classes 14 to 16 inclusive, as above set forth." Similar language is used in limiting the use of all industrial and residential districts, the right to make use of enumerated classes of buildings and industries in a particular district being expressly granted and all others prohibited. Classes 14 to 16 inclusive are as follows:

"Class 14. All business industries which use or occupy buildings or grounds for garages, stables or barns.

"Class 15. All business industries which use or occupy buildings or grounds for flats, duplexes, apartment houses, hotels, cafes or restaurants.

"Class 16. All business industries which use or occupy buildings or grounds for...