Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

trade, labor or business can be justified only by express statutory autbority.' A city adjoining navigable waters may make reasonable by-laws concerning quarantine and wharves within its limits. But it cannot thus prevent persons not its inhabitants from taking shell-fish in a navigable river within its bounds; because this would be in contravention of a common right." Yet, if the inhabitants of a town have the exclusive right of fishing in its waters, such a by-law is within its power. A city corporation cannot make a by-law which shall permit one person to carry on a dangerous business and prohibit another having equal claim. So it has been adjudged, but the doctrine is plainly subject to wide exceptions and qualifications.

$ 21. Nuisance - Bawdy-house - Keeping dog.- Without special legislative authority, a by-law cannot make abatable as a nuisance what is not so by the general law, thus destroying private property; nor, on the other hand, can it authorize the creation of a nuisance, whether public or private. But if the statute creating the corporation authorizes it to make by-laws relating to nuisances, an ordinance is within the authority which subjects to punishment the owners of houses of ill-fame, or those reputed to be such, knowing the facts. And, under this sort of

[ocr errors]

1 Barling v. West, 29 Wis. 307, [9 wooden buildings, or to limit the Am. R. 576;] Dunham v. Rochester, size of buildings; and an ordinance 5 Cow. 462; Plaquemine v. Roth, 29 prohibiting a hay-press within cerLa. An. 261; Norris v. Staps, Hob. tain limits is void. But generally, in 2100; Rochester v. Upman, 19 Mion. our cities, such things may be more 108; Hesketh v. Braddock, 3 Bur. or less regulated by by-laws And 1847; Harrison v. Godman, 1 Bur. 12; see Crim. Law, I, SS 1150, 1151; FieldClark v. Le Cren, 9 B. & C. 52. See ing v. Rhyl Imp. Co., 3 C P. D. 272; post, $ 22; (City v. Bazzetti, 159 Ill. Waupun v. Moore, 34 Wis. 450, [17 284; Anniston v. Ry. Co., 112 Ala. 557.] Am. R. 446.]

2 Dubois v. Augusta, Dudley (Ga.), 6 Pieri v. Shieldsboro, 42 Miss. 493; 30; St. Louis v. McCoy, 18 Mo. 238. Yates v. Milwaukee, 10 Wall. 497.

3 Hayden v. Noyes, 5 Conn. 391. And see Lake v. Aberdeen, 57 Miss.

4 Rogers v. Jones, 1 Wend. 237, [19 200; Waupun v. Moore, 34 Wis. 450, Am. D. 493.)

[17 Am. R. 446; Grossman v. City, 30 Hudson v. Thorne, 7 Paige, 261. Oreg. 478.] And see Cullinan v. New Orleans, 28 7 Pettis u. Johnson, 56 Ind. 139; S. La. An. 102; Shreveport v. Levy, 26 v. Lindsay, 34 Ark. 372. See FrankLa. An. 671, [21 Am. R. 553.]

lin Wharf v. Portland, 67 Me. 46, [24 Wooden buildings.- According to Am. R. 1.] Hudson v. Thorne, also, the charter 8 McAlister v. Clark, 33 Conn. 91; of the city of Hudson does not em. S. v. Williams, 11 S. C. 288; S. v. power it to restrict the erection of Reckards, 21 Minn. 47.

authority, a by-law may subject the keeping of a dog to a tax, and authorize the killing of the animal as a nuisance if the tax

is not paid.

$ 22. Requisites enumerated.-By-laws must be consistent with the act or charter of incorporation, not conflicting with it in letter or manifest intention;' harmonious with the general statutory and common law, which they cannot unauthorized supersede;" reasonable and beneficial;' not, in general, retro

1 Mowery

strictions

v. Salisbury, 82 N. C. 175. 3 Robinson v. Mayor, 1 Humph. 156, See Leach v. Elwood, 3 Bradw. 453; [34 Am. D. 625); Chapman v. Miller, Louisburg v. Harris, 7 Jones (N. C.), 2 Speers, 769; S. v. Savannah, T. U. P. 291; (City v. Winter, 86 Md. 293; S. Charl. 235, [4 Am. D. 708]: Welch v. 1: Taft, 118 N. C. 1190. As a general Stowell, 2 Doug. (Mich.) 382; Angell rule municipal corporations have & Ames, Corp., SS 332–334; Cinoin. much discretion in determining nati v. Rice, 15 Ohio, 225; Louisville what is a nuisance, and the exercise v. Roupe, 6 B. Mon. 591; Markle v. of this discretion will not be inter- Akron, 14 Ohio, 586; Reg. v. Ed. fered with by the courts, unless the monds, 4 Ellis & B. 993, 1 Jur. (N. S.) corporation has manifestly tran- 727, 30 Eng. L. & Eq. 379; Thompson scended the authority granted to it. v. Mt. Vernon, 11 Ohio St. 688; Seneca S. . Heidenhain, 42 La. An. 483, 7 County Bank v. Lamb, 26 Barb. 595; S. R. 621; Olympia v. Mann, 1 Wash. Lake v. Decatur, 91 III. 596; Gridley 389, 12 L RÅ. 150. The right to sell v. Bloomington, 88 Ill. 554, (30 Am. R. spirituous liquors, when granted by 566.] But a by-law may sometimes a municipal corporation, is subject punish the same offense which is into all the police powers of the corpo- dictable under a general law of the ration, and, in the absence of any ro state. S. v. Plunkett, 3 Harrison, 5.

upon its authority, it may See post, $ 23; (Buck v. Sarles, 129 revoke the license at any time. It is Ind. 201, 13 L. R. A. 481, 28 N. E. R. neither a contract nor property right 434.] in the licensee, but a mere permit to 4 March V. Com., 12 B. Mon. 25; do what would otherwise be an of. Com. v. Turner, 1 Cush. 493. And see fense under the general law. Ison Aberdeen v. Saunderson, 8 Sm. & M. v. Mayor, etc., 98 Ga. 623.]

663; Cincinnati v. Bryson, 15 Ohio, 2 Ante, ss 17a, 19; Hoblyn v. Rex, 2 625, [45 Am. D. 593]; Angell & Ames, Bro. P. C. 329; Rex v. Cutbush, 4 Bur. Corp., $ 333. 2204; Rex v. Canıbridge, 2 Selw. N. P. 5 Scriveners' Co. v. Brooking, 2 (11th ed.) 1176; Reg. v. Darlington Gale & D. 419, 6 Jur. 835; Rex v. School, 6 Q. B. 682; Com. v. Fahey, 5 York, 3 B. & Ad. 770; Elwood v. BulCush. 408; Rochester v. Collins, 12 lock, 6 Q. B. 383; Com. v. Robertson, Barb

. 559; Clintonville v. Keeting, 4 5 Cush. 438; Com. v. Worcester, 3 Denio

, 341; Indianapolis v. Fairchild, Pick. 462, 473; Kennebec & Portland 1 Ind. 315, Smith (Ind.), 122; S. v. R. R. Co. v. Kendall, 31 Me. 470; WillBeaufort, 2 Rich. 496; S. v. Hay, 29 iams v. Augusta, 4 Ga. 509; Com. v. Me 457; Morris v. Rome, 10 Ga. 532; Pittsburgh, 14 Pa. St. 177; Mayor and Cincinnati v. Gwynne, 10 Ohio, 192; Aldermen v. Maberry, 6 Humph. 368, Cincinnati v. Buckingham, 10 Ohio, [44 Am. D. 315); Boston v. Shaw, 1 257; Angell & Ames, Corp., $S 343–346. Met. 130; Austin v. Murray, 16 Pick. spective;' not restraining trade, though a by-law merely in regulation of trade is good.”

Penalty Forfeiture.— Every law has necessarily its penal sanction, and a rule not enforceable is not law. So that the power of making by-laws carries with it the power to render them effectual. But, without express statutory authority, a municipal corporation can inflict only the milder penalties. It cannot, for example, create a forfeiture.? Yet it can provide “reasonable and proper fines " for the violators of its by-laws.* And under statutory authority it may ordain forfeitures.'

Binds whom.- A by-law is properly for the government only of members of the corporation. But strangers coming within the corporate limits are amenable thereto. So also their prop

[ocr errors]

8

121, 125; Fielding v. Rhyl Imp. Co., 6 Coldw. 382; Zylstra v. Charleston, 3 C. P. D. 272; S. v. Jersey City, 8 1 Bay, 382; Cudden v. Estwick, 6 Mod. Vroom, 348; Corrigan v. Gage, 68 Mo. 123. See also Tobacco Pipe Makers 541; Ex parte Frank, 52 Cal. 606, [28 v. Woodroffe, 7 B. & C. 838; Mobile v. Am. R. 642]; Angell & Ames, Corp., Yuille, 3 Ala. 137, [36 Am. D. 441; SS 347–351; (S. v. Smith, 67 Conn. Eyerman v. Blaksley, 78 Mo. 145; St. 541.]

Louis v. Schornbusch, 95 Mo. 618, 8 S. 1 Howard v. Savannah, T. U. P. W. R. 791; Harris v. City Council, 100 Charl. 173.

Ga. 382; Re Ah You, 88 Cal. 99, 11 2 Ante, S 20.

L R. A. 408, 25 Pac. R. 974.] 3 Pierce v. Bartrum, Cowp. 269; 9 Ottumwa v. Schaub, 52 Iowa, 515; Cuddon v. Eastwick, 1 Salk. 143; Mobile & Ohio R. R. v. S., 29 Ala. 573; Com. v. Worcester, 3 Pick. 462, 473; Charleston v. Goldsmith, 2 Speers, Vandine, Petitioner, 6 Pick. 187, [17 428. [In Missouri it is held that a Am. D. 351]; City Council v. Ahrens, municipality cannot by ordinance 4 Strob. 241; Morris v. Rome, 10 Ga. create a civil liability against a per532; Angell & Ames, Corp., & 335. See son violating it and in favor of perante, $ 20; [Ex parte Bohen, 115 Cal. sons injured by its violation. Moran 372; Helena v. Dwyer, 64 Ark. 424; v. Car Co., 134 Mo. 041, 36 S. W. R. Ex parte Lacey, 108 Cal. 326; Theisey 659.) v. McDavid, 34 Fla. 410.]

10 Pierce v. Bartrum, Cowp. 269; * Criin. Law, I, SS 6-8.

Cuddon v. Eastwick, 1 Salk. 192; 5 Reinhard v. New York, 2 Daly, Whitfield v. Longest, 6 Ire. 268; 243.

Horney v. Sloan, 1 Ind. 266; Vandine, 6 Post, $ 403; Brieswick v. Bruns- Petitioner, 6 Pick. 187; Willcock, wick, 51 Ga. 639, 612, [21 Am. R. 210.] Corp. 105; Charleston v. Pepper, 1

7 Kirk v. Nowill, 1 T. R. 118; Dono- Rich. 361; Gosselink v. Campbell, 4 van v. Vicksburg, 29 Miss. 247, [64 Iowa, 296; Kennedy v. Sowden, 1 McAm. D. 143;] Angell & Ames, Corp. Mul 323. C. v. Dow, 10 Met. 382, S 340.

seems to have proceeded upon the 8 1 Dill. Mun. Corp. (2d ed.), $ 272, re- language of the statute which auferring to Fisher v. Harrisburg, 2 thorized the by-law. See further on Grant (Pa.), 291; Trigally v. Memphis, this point, C. v. Stodder, 2 Cush. 562,

authority, a by-law may subject the keeping of a dog to a tax, and authorize the killing of the animal as a nuisance if the tax is not paid.

§ 22. Requisites enumerated.- By-laws must be consistent with the act or charter of incorporation, not conflicting with it in letter or manifest intention;? harmonious with the general statutory and common law,' which they cannot unauthorized supersede;* reasonable and beneficial;; not, in general, retro

I Mowery v. Salisbury, 82 N. C. 175. 3 Robinson v. Mayor, 1 Humph. 156, See Leach v. Elwood, 3 Bradw. 453; [34 Am. D. 625); Chapman v. Miller, Louisburg t. Harris, 7 Jones (N. C.), 2 Speers, 769; S. v. Savannah, T. U. P. 291; (City v. Winter, 86 Md. 293; S. Charl. 235, [4 Am. D. 708]: Welch v. 1: Taft

, 118 N. C. 1190. As a general Stowell, 2 Doug. (Mich.) 382; Angell rule municipal corporations have & Ames, Corp., SS 332–334; Cincinmuch discretion in determining nati v. Rice, 15 Ohio, 225; Louisville what is a nuisance, and the exercise v. Roupe, 6 B. Mon. 591; Markle v. of this discretion will not be inter- Akron, 14 Ohio, 586; Reg. v. Ed. fered with by the courts, unless the monds, 4 Ellis & B. 993, 1 Jur. (N. S.) Corporation has manifestly tran- 727, 30 Eng. L. & Eq. 379; Thompson scended the authority granted to it. v. Mt. Vernon, 11 Ohio St. 688; Seneca 8. 1. Heidenhain, 42 La An. 483,7 County Bank v. Lamb, 26 Barb. 595; S. R. 621; Olympia v. Mann, 1 Wash. Lake v. Decatur, 91 Ill. 596; Gridley 389, 12 L R. A. 150. The right to sell v. Bloomington, 88 Ill. 554, [30 Am. R. spirituous liquors, when granted by 566.] But a by-law may sometimes a municipal corporation, is subject punish the same offense which is in. to all the police powers of the corpo- dictable under a general law of the ration, and, in the absence of any re- state. S. v. Plunkett, 3 Harrison, 5. strictions upon its authority, it may See post, $ 23; (Buck v. Sarles, 129 revoke the license at any time. It is Ind. 201, 13 L R. A. 481, 28 N. E. R. neither a contract nor property right 434.] in the licensee, but a mere permit to 4 March v. Com., 12 B. Mon. 25; do what would otherwise be an of. Com. v. Turner, 1 Cush. 493. And see fense under the general law. Ison Aberdeen v. Saunderson, 8 Sm. & M. v. Mayor, etc., 98 Ga 623.)

663; Cincinnati v. Bryson, 15 Ohio, ? Ante, ss 17a, 19; Hoblyn v. Rex, 2 625, [45 Am. D. 593]; Angell & Ames, Bro

. P. C. 329; Rex v. Cutbush, 4 Bur. Corp., $ 333. 2204; Rex v. Canıbridge, 2 Selw. N. P. 5 Scriveners' Co. v. Brooking, 2 (11th ed.) 1176; Reg. v. Darlington Gale & D. 419, 6 Jur. 835; Rex v. School

, 6 Q. B. 682; Com. v. Fahey, 5 York, 3 B. & Ad. 770; Elwood v. BulCush. 408; Rochester v. Collins, 12 lock, 6 Q. B. 383; Com. v. Robertson, Barb

. 559; Clintonville v. Keeting, 4 5 Cush. 438; Com. v. Worcester, 3 Denio, 341; Indianapolis v. Fairchild, Pick. 462, 473; Kennebec & Portland 1 Ind. 315, Smith (Ind.), 122; 8. v. R. R. Co. v. Kendall, 31 Me. 470; Will. Beaufort, 2 Rich. 496; 8. v. Hay, 29 iams v. Augusta, 4 Ga. 509; Com. v. Me 457; Morris v. Rome, 10 Ga. 532; Pittsburgh, 14 Pa. St. 177; Mayor and Cincinnati v. Gwynne, 10 Ohio, 192; Aldermen v. Maberry. 6 Humph. 368, Cincinnati v. Buckingham, 10 Ohio, [44 Am. D. 315); Boston v. Shaw, 1 257; Angell & Ames, Corp., SS 343–346. Met. 130; Austin v. Murray, 16 Pick.

.

3

spective;' not restraining trade, though a by-law merely in regulation of trade is good.”

Penalty - Forfeiture.— Every law has necessarily its penal sanction, and a rule not enforceable is not law. So that the

" power of making by-laws carries with it the power to render them effectual. But, without express statutory authority, a municipal corporation can inflict only the milder penalties. It cannot, for example, create a forfeiture. Yet it can provide “reasonable and proper fines” for the violators of its by-laws. And under statutory authority it may ordain forfeitures.

Binds whom.- A by-law is properly for the government only of members of the corporation. But strangers coming within the corporate limits are amenable thereto.10 So also their prop

121, 125; Fielding v. Rhyl Imp. Co., 6 Coldw. 382; Zylstra v. Charleston, 3 C. P. D. 272; S. v. Jersey City, 8 1 Bay, 382; Cudden v. Estwick, 6 Mod. Vroom, 348; Corrigan v. Gage, 68 Mo. 123. See also Tobacco Pipe Makers 541; Ex parte Frank, 52 Cal. 606, [28 v. Woodroffe, 7 B. & C. 838; Mobile v. Am. R. 642]; Angell & Ames, Corp., Yuille, 3 Ala. 137, (36 Am. D. 441; SS 347–351; (S. v. Smith, 67 Conn. Eyerman v. Blaksley, 78 Mo. 145; St. 541.)

Louis v. Schornbusch, 95 Mo. 618, 8 S. 1 Howard v. Savannah, T. U. P. W. R. 791; Harris v. City Council, 100 Charl. 173.

Ga. 382; Re Ah You, 88 Cal. 99, 11 2 Ante, $ 20.

L. R. A. 408, 25 Pac. R. 974.) 3 Pierce v. Bartrum, Cowp. 269; 9 Ottumwa v. Schaub, 52 Iowa, 515; Cuddon v. Eastwick, 1 Salk. 143; Mobile & Ohio R. R. v. S., 29 Ala. 573; Com. v. Worcester, 3 Pick. 462, 473; Charleston v. Goldsmith, 2 Speers, Vandine, Petitioner, 6 Pick. 187, [17 428. [In Missouri it is held that a Am. D. 351]; City Council v. Ahrens, municipality cannot by ordinance 4 Strob. 241; Morris v. Rome, 10 Ga. create a civil liability against a per532; Angell & Ames, Corp., S335. See son violating it and in favor of perante, $ 20; (Ex parte Bohen, 115 Cal. sons injured by its violation. Moran 372; Helena v. Dwyer, 64 Ark. 424; V. Car Co., 134 Mo. 641, 36 S. W. R. Ex parte Lacey, 108 Cal. 326; Theisey 659.) v. McDavid, 34 Fla. 440.]

10 Pierce v. Bartrum, Cowp. 269; 4 Crim. Law, I, SS 6-8.

Cuddon v. Eastwick, 1 Salk. 192; 5 Reinhard v. New York, 2 Daly, Whitfield v. Longest, 6 Ire. 268; 243.

Horney v. Sloan, 1 Ind. 266; Vandine, 6 Post, $ 403; Brieswick v. Bruns- Petitioner, 6 Pick. 187; Willcock, wick, 51 Ga. 639, 642, [21 Am. R. 240.) Corp. 105; Charleston v. Pepper, 1

7 Kirk v. Nowill, 1 T. R. 118; Dono- Rich. 364; Gosselink v. Campbell, 4 van v. Vicksburg, 29 Miss. 247, (64 Iowa, 296; Kennedy v. Sowden, 1 McAm. D. 143;] Angell & Ames, Corp. Mul 323. C. v. Dow, 10 Met. 382, $ 340.

seems to have proceeded upon the 81 Dill. Mun. Corp. (2d ed.), $ 272, re- language of the statute which auferring to Fisher v. Harrisburg, 2 thorized the by-law. See further on Grant (Pa.), 291; Trigally v. Memphis, this point, C. v. Stodder, 2 Cush. 562,

« AnteriorContinuar »