State ex rel. Romero v. Viator
| Decision Date | 24 April 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 39310,39310 |
| Citation | 46 So.2d 256,217 La. 239 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. ROMERO v. VIATOR, Mayor. |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Mestayer & Mestayer, New Iberia, for respondents-appellants.
A. Wilmot Dalferes, Lafayette, for relator-appellee.
Relator is the owner of a parcel of ground located in an unzoned commercial area of the City of New Iberia. On October 8, 1948, he made written application to the Mayor and Board of Trustees, in conformity with City Ordinance No. 671, for a permit to construct a one-story building on his property for use as a motion picture theatre. The application was denied, relator being advised by the city attorney on October 11, 1948, that the city council had directed the Mayor not to issue a permit; hence this suit, in which relator seeks a writ of mandamus commanding the Mayor and the Board of Trustees of the city to issue the desired permit.
In the lower court, the respondents contested the action on various grounds, the main one being that the Mayor was vested with discretionary powers with respect to the issuance of building permits. After elimination of the members of the Board of Trustees as parties defendant by agreement of counsel, the case proceeded to trial and resulted in the issuance of a writ of mandamus as prayed for by relator. The Mayor has appealed.
The principal contention of the Mayor in this Court is that the building permit ordinance of the City of New Iberia grants him discretion to issue or withhold permits as he deems proper.
We find no merit in the point. The ordinance provides in substance that no person shall construct, repair, etc., any building within the corporate limits of New Iberia without first having applied for and received a building permit; that each applicant shall be required to furnish certain information in connection with his application and pay charges based upon a graduated scale according to the cost of the construction or repair work, and that any violation of the ordinance shall be deemed a misdemeanor, punishable by fine and by imprisonment in default of payment of the fine. This ordinance was enacted pursuant to the authority granted by Act No. 234 of 1908, as amended by Act No. 237 of 1920, which empowers all municipalities exceeding 500 population to establish fire limits and to regulate the construction of buildings, etc., within said limits. Section 4 of the statute declares: 'All such municipalities shall be authorized to require building permits and permits for repairs, which permits shall be granted according to uniform rules, and shall never be refused when the application setting forth the character of the building to be constructed, or the natures of the repairs, conforms to the requirements of the ordinances of the municipality passed in pursuance of this Act, * * *.'
In view of the foregoing limitation of authority, it is clear that, aside from the fact that there is nothing in the ordinance indicating that the Mayor is given discretionary powers, the city council could not have validly provided for the exercise of discretion. Hence, upon relator's compliance 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 177.
Counsel for the Mayor insist that the building permit ordinance was not enacted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ben Lomond, Inc. v. City of Idaho Falls
...To the same effect are Phillips Petroleum Co. v. City of Park Ridge, 16 Ill.App.2d 555, 149 N.E.2d 344 (1958); State ex rel. Romero v. Viator, 217 La. 239, 46 So.2d 256 (1950); State ex rel. Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Wahner, 25 Wis.2d 1, 130 N.W.2d 304 (1964); City of Decatur v. Fountain......
-
Alexander v. City of Minneapolis
...at the time of the application for such permit.' See, Downey v. City of Sioux City, 208 Iowa 1273, 227 N.W. 125; State ex rel. Romero v. Viator, 217 La. 239, 46 So.2d 256; Krajenke Buick Sales v. Hamtramck City Engineer, 322 Mich. 250, 33 N.W.2d 781; State ex rel. Kramer v. Schwartz, 336 Mo......
-
Schmitt v. City of New Orleans
...Charles, 175 La. 803, 144 So. 502 (1932); State ex rel Fitzmaurice v. Clay, 208 La. 443, 23 So.2d 177 (1945); State ex rel Romero v. Viator, 217 La. 239, 46 So.2d 256 (1950). As we held above, at the time mandamus was issued, there was no valid ordinance to support C-1A zoning. Finally, def......
-
Summerell v. Phillips
...not impliedly overruled, in the subsequent cases of State Ex Rel Fitzmaurice v. Clay, 208 La. 443, 23 So.2d 177, and State Ex Rel Romero v. Viator, 217 La. 239, 46 So.2d 256. Granted that in the Clay and Viator cases, above, no ordinance was adopted. However, in the case at hand, appellant ......