West Realty Co. v. Ennis
| Citation | 164 A.2d 409,147 Conn. 602 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Decision Date | 26 July 1960 |
| Parties | WEST REALTY COMPANY v. William J. ENNIS, Building Supervisor of the City of Hartford. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Wallace W. Brown, with whom was Roger P. Morgan, Hartford, for appellant (plaintiff).
Joseph J. Burns, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Hartford, for appellee (defendant).
Before BALDWIN, C. J., and KING, MURPHY, MELLITZ and SHEA, JJ.
The plaintiff is the owner of a two-story commercial building on Main Street in the central business district of Hartford. The building was damaged extensively in two separate fires in January and February, 1959. It is located within the inner fire limits of the city. The defendant is the building supervisor of the city and also the chief inspector of licenses and inspections. Acting in the latter capacity, he ordered the demolition of the damaged building under the provisions of the building code. The plaintiff brought suit to enjoin him from enforcing his order. The Superior Court denied the plaintiff relief, and it has appealed.
In its assignment of errors, the plaintiff sought extensive corrections in the finding and claimed error in one ruling upon evidence. In its brief, it has restricted its argument to four claims of error. The others are considered as abandoned. E. M. Loew's Enterprises, Inc. v. Surabian, 146 Conn. 608, 611, 153 A.2d 463; State v. Pallanck, 146 Conn. 527, 531, 152 A.2d 633. The plaintiff maintains that the ordinance under which the defendant acted is unconstitutional; that the defendant violated the constitutional provisions relating to due process in ordering the demolition of the building without first conducting a hearing in a judicial manner; that the defendant erroneously construed and applied the ordinance; and that the extent of damage to the building was less, percentagewise, than the defendant found it to be.
Section 43-37 of the Hartford building code prohibits the repair of any building of frame or ordinary (nonfireproof) construction within the inner fire limits when it has been damaged by fire or other causes 'to the extent of 50 per cent of the cost of replacing the original building, exclusive of the value of the foundations.' The section then provides that any such building 'may be condemned by the chief inspector of licenses and inspections,' and that, if it is so condemned, he shall order it removed forthwith. Section 43-39 of the code gives the chief inspector of licenses and inspections the sole authority to determine the question of the cost of repairing or replacing such a structure and the extent of the damage by fire or other causes. The plaintiff's building was of ordinary construction. The defendant found that the cost of repairing the damage caused by fire would be $162,801, and the cost of replacing the original building, exclusive of the foundation, with a nonconforming, nonfireproof replica would be $294,006. The cost of repair would thus amount to 55.4 per cent of the replacement cost. On the basis of these precentages, the defendant condemned the building and ordered its demolition.
The principal claim of the plaintiff is that so much of § 43-37 of the building code as permits the chief inspector to condemn a building and order it demolished is unconstitutional because it does not contain the standards by which his action is to be governed. The plaintiff has not contested the validity of the part of § 43-37 which prohibits the repair of any such building when so damaged. If the building cannot be repaired, it stands to reason that deterioration will take place and with the passage of time the building will become a menace to public safety and eventually a nuisance in fact. General Statutes § 19-378 authorizes each city to enact ordinances to prevent the erection of unsafe buildings. The prohibition in § 43-37 of the building code against repairing any ordinary building within the inner fire limits when it has been extensively damaged is in accordance with the power granted by the legislature to the city to prevent the erection of unsafe buildings and amounts to a legislative determination that a building so damaged is unsafe. Section 19-391 of the General Statutes authorizes a building inspector to order the removal of any building or portion thereof which has been damaged to such an extent that, after inspection, he concludes that its removal is necessary in the interests of public safety. Interpretation of § 43-37 of the building code in harmony with §§ 19-378 and 19-391 of the General Statutes leads to the obvious conclusion that damage to the extent of 50 per cent, exclusive of the value of the foundation, is in itself a sufficient standard for the guidance of the defendant. Len-Lew Realty Co. v. Falsey, 141 Conn. 524, 530, 107 A.2d 403. By necessary implication, 'may' as used in § 43-37 of the building code has to be construed as 'must,' so that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Plunkett v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
...pursued in the brief. They are therefore treated as abandoned. Donch v. Kardos, 149 Conn. 196, 199, 177 A.2d 801; West Realty Co. v. Ennis, 147 Conn. 602, 603, 164 A.2d 409. There is error, the judgment is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this In......
-
Horne v. City of Cordele
...of allowing demolition under police power or so repairing the building that it conformed to the zoning laws. In West Realty Co. v. Ennis, 147 Conn. 602, 164 A.2d 409, property constituting a fire hazard, where cost of repair would exceed 50 percent of replacement cost might be condemned, i.......
-
Walter v. Home Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Meriden
...have not been pursued in the plaintiff's brief or in argument and will, therefore, be considered as abandoned. West Realty Co. v. Ennis, 147 Conn. 602, 603, 164 A.2d 409. The sole question involved in the appeal, then, is whether the court erred in ruling that the plaintiff's evidence was i......
-
Varley v. Varley
...those claims which are briefed will be considered. Fleischer v. Kregelstein, 150 Conn. 158, 159, 187 A.2d 241 ; West Realty Co. v. Ennis, 147 Conn. 602, 603, 164 A.2d 409. The first claimed error concerns the denial of alimony pendente lite and counsel fees. The defendant claims that the so......