Richmond Safety Gate Co. v. Ashbridge

• Decision Date: 28 May 1902
• Citation: 116 F. 220
• Parties: RICHMOND SAFETY GATE CO. v. ASHBRIDGE et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

116 F. 220

RICHMOND SAFETY GATE CO. v. ASHBRIDGE et al.

United States Circuit Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

May 28, 1902

Thomas R. White, for complainant.

John L Kinsey and Norris S. Barratt, for respondents.

DALLAS Circuit Judge.

The plaintiff is a corporation of the state of Indiana engaged in the manufacture of 'Full Automatic Gates' for use in connection with freight elevators, and these gates it sells and erects throughout a considerable part of the United States and elsewhere. A Pennsylvania statute of May 5 1899, provided that cities of the first class might, by general ordinance, regulate the management and inspection of elevator hoistways and elevator shafts in said cities; and on April 6, 1900, an ordinance of the city of Philadelphia was duly approved, entitled 'An ordinance to provide for the inspection of passenger and freight elevators,' etc section 3 whereof is as follows:

'Sec. 3. The chief of the bureau of building inspection, subject to the approval of the director of the department of public safety, shall formulate such rules and regulations as may seem necessary for the proper inspection of passenger and freight elevators, and such rules and regulations, when so formulated and promulgated, shall have the same force and effect as if they had been specifically and in detail set forth and provided for in this ordinance. The chief of the bureau of building inspection shall also prescribe such rules and regulations as may seem necessary concerning the performance of the duties of the several inspectors herein provided for, and the other employes who may be appointed under the provisions of this ordinance, subject to the approval of the director of the department.'

By authority claimed to have been conferred by this section the defendant Robert C. Hill, chief of the bureau of building inspection, with the approval of the defendant Abraham L. English, director of public safety, promulgated 'rules governing the construction, operation, and maintenance of passenger and freight elevators,' wherein it was stated that 'full automatic gates, wherever found, will be condemned, and must be replaced within a reasonable time by gates approved by this bureau. ' The natural and actual consequence of this 'rule' has been to exclude all full automatic gates of the plaintiff from the Philadelphia market and to prevent it from doing business as vendor of such gates for use within that city; and the main question in this case is as to the validity of the asserted authority of the defendants, or any of them, to effect this result by such means. In the brief submitted on their behalf it is said:

'Defendants do not contend that the rule against full automatic gates has the force and effect of the ordinance of April 6, 1900, as is therein specifically provided, because councils could not delegate the power given to them by the legislature, but it is merely to be regarded as a rule for the guidance of inspectors, so that their conduct shall be uniform. As to the right to do this section 4 of the ordinance of 1900 expressly provides that 'the chief of the bureau of building inspection shall also have the power to condemn any mechanical part or appliance connected with any passenger or freight elevator, if the same, in his judgement, if dangerous or unreliable.''

It may I think, well be doubted whether the language above quoted from section 4 of the ordinance of April 6, 1900, is indicative of an intent to give to the chief of the bureau of building inspection the power to condemn a whole class of appliances, and this, not upon or after...