State ex rel. Blaise v. City of New Orleans
| Decision Date | 30 June 1917 |
| Docket Number | 22027 |
| Citation | 142 La. 73,76 So. 244 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. BLAISE v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS et al |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Though courts may not inquire into the motives of a legislative body in adopting a law, the objects and purposes of such law especially when therein fully set forth, are to be weighed and considered in its interpretation. Civ. Code, art. 18.
A city ordinance of the city of New Orleans which interferes with the liberty or property rights of its citizens and which is based upon aesthetic considerations only is ultra vires and invalid.
John J. Reilley, Asst. City Atty., and I. D. Moore, City Atty., both of New Orleans, for appellant.
Cage, Baldwin & Crabites, of New Orleans (Henry B. Curtis, of New Orleans, on the brief), for appellee.
Relator, as owner of a lot of ground fronting on Oak street in the city of New Orleans, applied to Wm. J. Hardee, city engineer of the city of New Orleans, for a permit to erect a building on said lot, in order that he might establish therein a private market. The city engineer refused to grant the said permit for the reason that the establishment and operation of such market was forbidden by the following ordinance of the city of New Orleans:
No. 1812, Commission Council Series.
Section 1. Be it ordained by the commission council of the city of New Orleans, that hereafter it shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to establish any grocery, barroom, oyster shop, fruit shop, market, laundry, etc., on Oak street, from Carrollton avenue to Broadway street it being the object and purpose of this ordinance to confine buildings on said street for residential purposes only.
Section 2. Be it further ordained, etc., that any person or persons, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of section 1 of this ordinance shall, upon conviction thereof before any court of competent jurisdiction be fined not more than twenty-five dollars ($ 25.00) or sentenced to imprisonment for not more than thirty days, at the discretion of said court.
Adopted by the commission council of the city of New Orleans Sept. 8th, 1914.
Jos. B. Norriss,
Asst. Clerk of Commission Council.
Approved Sept. 8th, 1914.
Martin Behrman, Mayor.
He thereupon applied to the civil district court for the parish of Orleans for a writ of mandamus directing the city of New Orleans, through Hon. Martin Behrman, mayor, and Wm. J. Hardee, city engineer of said city, and commanding the latter to issue to relator a building permit to erect a private market on his said lot of ground, and he further prayed for a writ of injunction restraining the said city of New Orleans from enforcing the said ordinance against him and from interfering with the erection and establishment by him of a private market upon his said property.
Relator alleges as grounds for relief that the said ordinance of the city of New Orleans is illegal, null, and void, for the following reasons, to wit:
(1) That the commission council of the city of New Orleans had and has no power, right, or authority to pass said ordinance, and the same is ultra vires.
(2) That said ordinance is oppressive, unreasonable, unjust, and illegal.
(3) That said ordinance deprives relator of his property without due process of law, in violation of the Constitution and laws of this state, and in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and especially the Fourteenth Amendment thereof.
He further charges that the enforcement of said ordinance by the city of New Orleans against him will deprive relator of the legitimate use of his property in a lawful, innocent, and useful business, and will cause him an irreparable injury, which injury would amount to more than $ 2,000, and that there is no other adequate remedy at law in the premises.
The answer of defendants admits all the facts alleged by relator, but denies the conclusions of law drawn therefrom, and especially denies the alleged illegality of the ordinance upon which the refusal of relator's building permit was based.
The trial judge after due hearing rendered judgment as prayed for by relator, and from such judgment the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Civello v. City of New Orleans
... ... and section 6, paragraph 2 (c), for authority to forbid ... business establishments in designated residence districts, ... and this court had decided, in Calvo v. City of New ... Orleans, 136 La. 480, 67 So. 338 (in January, 1915), and ... again in State ex rel. Blaise v. City of New ... Orleans, 142 La. 73, 76 So. 244 (in June, 1917), that ... the city's charter did not give the municipal council ... authority to enact such an ordinance ... It was ... therefore contrary to the ruling in the Calvo Case and in the ... Blaise Case, that the ... ...
-
Klause v. State Through Dept. of Highways
...186 La. 295, 172 So. 163. The objects and purposes of a law are to be weighed in its interpretation. State ex rel. Blaise v. City of New Orleans, 142 La. 73, 76 So. 244. 'It is the duty of the court to ascertain the meaning of the Legislature and to attach to its acts a rational and benefic......
-
King v. Caddo Parish Com'n
...La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 33: 47239 See Calvo v. City of New Orleans, 136 La. 480, 67 So. 338 (1915); and Blaise v. City of New Orleans, 142 La. 73, 76 So. 244 (1917).10 See Palermo Land Co. v. Planning Com'n, 561 So.2d 482, 491 (La.1990), rehearing denied (citing Civello, 97 So. at 444).11 La. R......
-
Plebst v. Barnwell Drilling Co.
...just and adequate compensation previously paid.4 Calvo v. City of New Orleans, 136 La. 480, 67 So. 338 (1915) and Blaise v. City of New Orleans, 142 La. 73, 76 So. 244 (1917) held that the charter of the City of New Orleans did not vest in the Municipal Council authority to enact a zoning o......