Town of Grundy Ctr. v. Marion, No. 45541.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa
Writing for the CourtSTIGER
Citation231 Iowa 425,1 N.W.2d 677
Decision Date13 January 1942
Docket NumberNo. 45541.
PartiesTOWN OF GRUNDY CENTER v. MARION.

231 Iowa 425
1 N.W.2d 677

TOWN OF GRUNDY CENTER
v.
MARION.

No. 45541.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Jan. 13, 1942.


Appeal from District Court, Grundy County; Geo. W. Wood, Judge.

A suit to enjoin defendant from engaging in the business of junk dealer in Grundy Center in violation of Revised Ordinance No. 46 and for mandatory injunction. Decree for plaintiff. Defendant appealed.

Affirmed.

[1 N.W.2d 678]

W. L. Mooty, of Grundy Center, DeWolf & DeWolf, of Reinbeck, and McCoy & Beecher, of Waterloo, for appellant.

H. A. Willoughby, of Grundy Center, and Swisher, Cohrt & Gillilland, of Waterloo, for appellee.


STIGER, Justice.

Revised Ordinance No. 46 reads in part as follows:

“Section 3. Location. It shall be unlawful for any junk dealer to keep, maintain, operate or use, any building, lot or other place, for the storing or depositing of junk, anywhere in the following territory.

“Within three hundred (300) feet of any building used for business or residential purposes.

“Section 4. Minors. It shall be unlawful for any junk dealer to purchase or receive any property from minors without the written consent of their parents or guardians. (5744 Par. 4)

“Section 5. Examination of Premises. Any peace officer shall have power to examine the premises of any junk dealer, for the purpose of discovering stolen property and it shall be unlawful for any junk dealer to refuse to allow any peace officer to make such examination. (5744 Par. 4)”

“Section 7. Concealing Property. It shall be unlawful for any junk dealer to conceal or secrete any article purchased or received by him for the purpose of preventing identification thereof by any peace officer or by any person claiming the ownership of the same.”

“Section 9. Penalties. Anyone violating any of the provisions of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be subject to imprisonment not exceeding thirty days, or to a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars,” etc.

The petition alleged defendant, in violation of the ordinance, was conducting his business on Lots 8, 10, 11, Block 11, Copps Addition to the Town of Grundy Center, Iowa, within 300 feet of buildings used for business and residential purposes; that the maintenance of said junk business, and depositing and storing junk, upon the premises was offensive and unhealthful, and repugnant to the morals, comfort and convenience of the plaintiff and the inhabitants thereof; that the plaintiff has no adequate, speedy and complete remedy at law.

The prayer asked that defendant be enjoined from such violation and for a mandatory

[1 N.W.2d 679]

injunction requiring defendant to remove the junk stored on said premises to some place within the city which is 300 feet or more from any buildings used for business or residential purposes. Relief was granted to the plaintiff as prayed by decree entered in the cause.

The street frontage of defendant's lots is 376 feet and the depth is 100 feet. At the time of the commencement of this suit defendant had purchased and deposited on his property old iron, old machinery, old automobiles, broken pieces of machinery, old tires, broken up cars, old auto bodies, rags, old stoves, old upholstery, waste material and stuff of all kinds and junk. There is a fence on the west and south side of the property. There is evidence that the junk yard is unsightly; constitutes a breeding place for rats; that burning of upholstery, old tires and generators produces an offensive, heavy, black smoke and that it has a detrimental effect on property values. There were 50 old cars on the premises that had not been broken down or wrecked. Defendant's business aggregated from $25,000 to $30,000 per year. Though denied by defendant, the fact that he is carrying on the business of a junk dealer is too thoroughly established by the record to require discussion.

There are ten or twelve business and residential properties within 300 feet of defendant's junk yard.

I. Appellant's first assignment of error is that the ordinance had not been duly adopted and was not in force and effect at the time in question. It was stipulated in the lower court that the only objection made by appellant to the ordinance was that it was not published as provided by law.

Section 5721.1, 1939 Code, reads: “5721.1 Notice of revision. When a town revises its ordinances, it shall file a typewritten copy of the revision in the office of the town clerk and publish a notice once each week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper published in the town, stating that its ordinances have been revised and that a copy of the revision is on file in the clerk's office for public inspection. The notice shall give the number and title of each ordinance. In case no newspaper is published in the town, the town clerk shall post the notice in three public places within the town.”

We set out the material portions of the notice of revision of city ordinances published by the municipality:

“Proceedings of Town Council.

“7:00 P. M. October 17, 1938

“Council Chambers.

“Council met as per adjournment of October 10, 1938, with the following present: (Names of Mayor and councilmen follow.)

“The following named ordinances as revised were adopted: Here follows a reference to many ordinances including No. 46 which reads:

“An Ordinance to Regulate and License Junk Dealers and Prescribing Penalties for Violation.

“Council adjourned until the next regular meeting.

“Helene C. Heiberger, Clerk.

“Notice of Ordinance Revision.

“Notice is hereby given that the ordinances of the Town of Grundy Center, Iowa, have been revised and that a typewritten copy of such revised ordinances is on file in the office of the clerk for public inspection.

“The number and title of such revised ordinances are as follows:

“Number and Title

“Revised Ordinance No. 1.

“An ordinance providing for the corporate seal and defining its uses.”

Then follow similar references to 66 revised ordinances. The reference to revised Ordinance No. 46 is:

“Revised Ordinance No. 46.

“An ordinance to regulate and license junk dealers and prescribing penalties for violation.”

This notice was published once each week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper published in Grundy Center and a type-written copy of the revision was filed in the office of the town clerk.

Appellant claims the ordinance was not in effect at the time in question because (1) the notice of revision of the ordinance was not signed and (2) it does not appear that at the time of the adoption of the ordinance there was an ordinance relating to junk dealers and therefore Ordinance No. 46 was not a revised ordinance.

Neither of these contentions can be sustained.

While notices should be signed, the purpose of a signature is to authenticate the instrument or writing and give notice of its source, and it is well settled

[1 N.W.2d 680]

that, unless otherwise especially provided, it is not necessary that the signature be placed at the foot of the instrument. 58 C.J. 724, and see Blair v. Hemphill, 111 Iowa 226, 82 N.W. 501. The city clerk signed the published notice at the foot of the proceedings of the council enumerating the ordinances that were revised and just prior to the designation of the revised ordinances by number and title. It must have been plain to anyone reading the published notice that it emanated from and was published by the authority of the city council. We hold that the location of the signature of the clerk on the notice was sufficient to constitute a valid signing of the notice.

Ordinance No. 46 was recorded in a book containing the revised ordinances...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 practice notes
  • State v. Rees, No. 51826
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • January 11, 1966
    ...limits. Hubbell v. Higgins, 148 Iowa 36, 46, 126 N.W. 914; State v. Strayer, 230 Iowa 1027, 299 N.W. 912; Town of Grundy Center v. Marion, 231 Iowa 425, 435, 1 N.W.2d 677, and Davis, Brody, Wisniewski v. Barrett, 253 Iowa 1178, 1180, 115 N.W.2d In Frank v. State of Maryland, 359 U.S. 360, 7......
  • Board of Sup'rs of Cerro Gordo County v. Miller, No. 53661
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • September 5, 1969
    ...The majority does so here, although there is no effort to enjoin this business was a nuisance. See Town of Grundy Center v. Marion, 231 Iowa 425, 1 N.W.2d 677. It must be remembered, however, that the cases do not base the constitutionality of the zoning law on the requirement that the busi......
  • Harvey v. Prall, No. 49727
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • June 9, 1959
    ...with approval in State v. Fray, 214 Iowa 53, [250 Iowa 1117] 56, 241 N.W. 663, 664, 81 A.L.R. 286, and Town of Grundy Center v. Marion, 231 Iowa 425, 431, 1 N.W.2d 677, 680; 28 Am.Jur., Injunctions, § 9; 43 C.J.S. Injunctions § Although rule 321, Rules of Civil Procedure, states when a temp......
  • Sound Storm Enterprises, Inc. v. Keefe In and For Fayette County, No. 54838
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • July 3, 1973
    ...of public interest and welfare, then attendant criminality neither gives nor ousts jurisdiction in equity. See Grundy Center v. Marion, 231 Iowa 425, 431--432, 1 N.W.2d 677 (1942); 42 Am.Jur.2d, Injunctions, § 160; 43 C.J.S. Injunctions § 152. See also McClintock on Equity, § 164 (2d ed. Pe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
15 cases
  • State v. Rees, No. 51826
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • January 11, 1966
    ...limits. Hubbell v. Higgins, 148 Iowa 36, 46, 126 N.W. 914; State v. Strayer, 230 Iowa 1027, 299 N.W. 912; Town of Grundy Center v. Marion, 231 Iowa 425, 435, 1 N.W.2d 677, and Davis, Brody, Wisniewski v. Barrett, 253 Iowa 1178, 1180, 115 N.W.2d In Frank v. State of Maryland, 359 U.S. 360, 7......
  • Board of Sup'rs of Cerro Gordo County v. Miller, No. 53661
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • September 5, 1969
    ...The majority does so here, although there is no effort to enjoin this business was a nuisance. See Town of Grundy Center v. Marion, 231 Iowa 425, 1 N.W.2d 677. It must be remembered, however, that the cases do not base the constitutionality of the zoning law on the requirement that the busi......
  • Harvey v. Prall, No. 49727
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • June 9, 1959
    ...with approval in State v. Fray, 214 Iowa 53, [250 Iowa 1117] 56, 241 N.W. 663, 664, 81 A.L.R. 286, and Town of Grundy Center v. Marion, 231 Iowa 425, 431, 1 N.W.2d 677, 680; 28 Am.Jur., Injunctions, § 9; 43 C.J.S. Injunctions § Although rule 321, Rules of Civil Procedure, states when a temp......
  • Sound Storm Enterprises, Inc. v. Keefe In and For Fayette County, No. 54838
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • July 3, 1973
    ...of public interest and welfare, then attendant criminality neither gives nor ousts jurisdiction in equity. See Grundy Center v. Marion, 231 Iowa 425, 431--432, 1 N.W.2d 677 (1942); 42 Am.Jur.2d, Injunctions, § 160; 43 C.J.S. Injunctions § 152. See also McClintock on Equity, § 164 (2d ed. Pe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT