State ex rel. Calvary Baptist Church v. City of Alexandria
| Decision Date | 11 July 1927 |
| Docket Number | 28594 |
| Citation | 114 So. 492,164 La. 628 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH v. CITY OF ALEXANDRIA |
Rehearing Denied October 4, 1927.
Appeal from Ninth Judicial District Court, Parish of Rapides; R. C. Culpepper, Judge. Mandamus by the State, on the relation of the Calvary Baptist Church, against the City of Alexandria. Judgment for relator, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Thornton, Gist & Richey, of Alexandria, for appellant.
Hawthorn & Stafford, of Alexandria, for appellee.
On Motion to Remand
In this case a motion to remand was filed similar In all respects and under the same circumstances as in State ex rel. Hundley v. City of Alexandria (our No. 28,593) ante, p. 624, 114 So. 491, and for the reasons therein assigned.
The motion to remand is therefore denied.
On the Merits.
ST. PAUL, J. This case presents exactly the same issues as those presented in State ex rel. Hundley et al. v. City of Alexandria, ante, p. 624, 114 So. 491, this day decided; with but slight difference.
The first difference is that in its answer defendant sets up that the permit was refused because of alleged special conditions applicable exclusively to the property on which this relator seeks to build. But section 4 of Act 237 of 1920, p. 456 (quoted in full in the case above mentioned), requires that such permits shall be granted or refused "according to uniform rules," and hence the attempt of defendant to refuse a permit to this relator on account of alleged special conditions is unwarranted.
The other difference is that the permit herein sought was applied for by petition to the city council, instead of to the city engineer as required by the city ordinance. The law above mentioned clearly authorizes the application to be made to the city or its "governing authority," so that the application herein made to the city council sufficed. Moreover, the record shows that the permit would not have been issued, no matter to whom the application might have been made. And since the law requires no one to do a vain and useless thing, the relator, was justified in applying to the courts at once upon the refusal of the council itself to grant it a permit.
Decree.
The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Romero v. Viator
...with the provisions of the ordinance, it became the ministerial duty of the Mayor to issue the permit. State ex rel. Calvary Baptist Church v. City of Alexandria, 164 La. 628, 114 So. 492, and State ex rel. Fitzmaurice v. Clay, 208 La. 443, 23 So.2d Counsel for the Mayor insist that the bui......
- State ex rel. Hundley v. City of Alexandria
-
Edwards v. City of Hammond
... ... (a state highway) which the station faces on the west. It ... effect. See State ex rel. Hundley et al. v. City of ... Alexandria, 164 a. 624, 114 So. 491; State ex rel. Calvary ... Baptist Church v. City of Alexandria, 164 ... ...
- State ex rel. Hundley v. City of Alexandria