MAGUIRE ET AL.
v.
REARDON ET AL., AS COMMISSIONERS, CONSTITUTING THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
San Francisco officials sought to demolish a wooden building erected in violation of local fire limit regulations, and the property owners challenged the demolition ordinance as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that because the building was unlawfully constructed within fire limits contrary to valid municipal regulations, the city had constitutional authority to order its removal without violating federal law.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the court.
Defendants in error, officers and agents of the City and County of San Francisco, purporting to act under an ordinance approved May 8, 1917, gave notice of their intention to demolish and remove a wooden building on Van Ness Avenue, the property of plaintiffs in error. Thereupon the latter instituted this proceeding for an injunction upon the ground, among others, that as the building was lawfully erected the ordinance violated the Federal Constitution.
The court below, following Bancroft v. Goldberg, Bowen & Co., 166 California, 416, held that the building was erected in 1906 within the fire limits theretofore prescribed in violation of valid local regulations duly enacted under the charter, and consequently there could be no reasonable doubt of the municipality’s power to direct its removal. The meaning and effect of the charter and ordinances thereunder are questions of local law determination of which by the state courts we commonly accept as conclusive. It is admitted that the building was constructed within defined fire limits, and the' Supreme Court of the State has said this was contrary to valid regulations then in force. The challenged ordinance must therefore be treated ás affecting an unlawful structure, and as so applied -we can find no plausible ground for holding it in conflict with the Federal Constitution. .
The judgment below is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State of Ga. v. City of Chattanooga, 264 U.S. 472 (U.S. 1924)…ing and proper application of the laws of Tennessee, and it is especially appropriate that the Tennessee courts shall first decide that question. The decision of its highest court on that question would be followed by this Court. Maguire v. Reardon, 255 U. S. 271; Cusack Co. v. Chicago, 242 U. S. 526, 529; Reinman v. [*484] Little Rock, 237 U. S. 171, 176; Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co. v. Goldsboro, 232 U. S. 548, 555. If the decision of that court shall deny to Georgia any rights secured to it by the Consti…