Sander v. City of Blytheville
Citation | 262 S.W. 23 |
Decision Date | 19 May 1924 |
Docket Number | (No. 386.) |
Parties | SANDER et al. v. CITY OF BLYTHEVILLE et al. |
Court | Supreme Court of Arkansas |
Action by A. L. Sander and others against the City of Blytheville and others. From a judgment of dismissal, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
Costen & Harrison, of Blytheville, for appellants.
Max B. Reid, of Blytheville, for appellees.
On the 5th day of December, 1922, the city council of the city of Blytheville passed the following ordinance:
This action was instituted by the appellants against the appellees, the mayor and chief of police of the city of Blytheville, to enjoin the enforcement of the above ordinance. They set out the ordinance in their complaint, and allege that they maintain a gasoline filling station within the fire limits of the city of Blytheville, as set out and defined in the ordinance. They allege that the tank for the gasoline is constructed underneath the city pavement, with all the safeguards and protection against fire, and that the gasoline pump connected with the tank does not extend into the street, but is located between the sidewalk and curb line of the street; that the water hydrant, oil tanks, and air service appliances are located at the front of their building between the sidewalk and curb line of the street, and are in no sense a public nuisance. They say that their station is not within several blocks of any public school or church. They set up that there are two gasoline filling stations within the heart of the city, and within the fire limits of the city, known as "drive-in" stations, so situated and so constructed as to subject the inhabitants of the city to much greater danger from fire than the filling station of appellant; yet the ordinance prohibiting the appellant from operating does not prohibit these drive-in stations from operating; and that the ordinance, therefore, arbitrarily destroys the business of the appellants, while protecting that of the stations mentioned, and gives the drive-in stations a monopoly on the gasoline business in the city of Blytheville; and that the ordinance thus deprives appellants of their property without due process of law, in violation of the Constitution of Arkansas (art. 2, § 8), and of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and is therefore unreasonable, discriminatory, and void.
The appellees demurred to the complaint on the general ground that it did not state a cause of action. The appellants stood on the complaint, and the court entered a decree dismissing the complaint, from which is this appeal.
1. The question presented by this appeal is whether the ordinance under review is unconstitutional and void because it prohibits gasoline filling stations, gasoline pumps, oil tanks, water hydrants, air service appliances, or other automobile service equipment therein designated, on the streets, alleys, or sidewalks within the fire limits of the city of Blytheville. Under our Constitution, the General Assembly shall provide, by general laws, for the organization of cities and towns, and no municipal corporation shall be authorized to pass any law contrary to the general laws of the state. Article 12, §§ 3 and 4, Const. 1874.
Sections 7493 and 7494 of Crawford & Moses' Digest provide that municipal corporations shall have power to make and publish, from time to time, such by-laws or ordinances, not inconsistent with the laws of the state, as to them shall seem necessary to provide for the safety, preserve the health, promote the prosperity, and improve the morals, order, comfort, and convenience of the inhabitants thereof.
Section 7748 confers upon municipal corporations the power:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sander v. Blytheville
... ... 386Supreme Court of ArkansasMay 19, 1924 ... Appeal ... from Mississippi Chancery Court; Archer Wheatley, Chancellor; ... affirmed ... Decree ... affirmed ... Costen & Harrison, for appellant ... A city ... council cannot by ordinance condemn an act or thing as a ... nuisance, unless, in its nature, situation and use, it comes ... within the legal notion of a nuisance. It is a question of ... fact. 41 Ark. 526; 64 Ark. 612. The ordinance is arbitrary, ... unreasonable and discriminatory, in ... ...
-
Gannaway v. Street Improvement District No. 32
... ... assessments and all the proceedings of the board of ... improvement appointed by the city council for the district ... The bill of appellants [164 Ark. 409] was dismissed by the ... ...
-
Smith v. Barrett, Building Inspector of Logan City
... ... nuisance per se. National Refining Co. v ... Batte, 135 Miss. 819, 100 So. 388, 35 A. L. R. 91; ... Sander v. City of Blytheville, 164 Ark ... 434, 262 S.W. 23; City of Des Moines v ... Manhattan Oil Co., 193 Iowa 1096, 184 N.W. 823, 188 ... N.W. 921, ... ...