Opinion · Molaw Missouri
STATE EX REL. v. McKELVEY, 301 Mo. 130 (Mo.banc 1923)
STATE ex rel. BETTER BUILT HOMES Mortg. CO. v. JAMES N. McKELVEY,Director of Pub. Safety of City of St. Louis., 256 S.W. 495 (Supreme Court of Missouri,In Banc. 1923)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Molaw Missouri
- Jurisdiction
- Molaw
- Date
- 1923-11-20
- Topic
- general
STATE EX REL. v. McKELVEY, 301 Mo. 130 (Mo.banc 1923) 256 S.W. 495 THE STATE ex rel. BETTER BUILT HOMES MORTGAGE CO. v. JAMES N. McKELVEY,Director of Public Safety of City of St.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed STATE EX REL. v. McKELVEY, 301 Mo. 130 (Mo.banc 1923). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
STATE EX REL. v. McKELVEY,301 Mo. 130(Mo.banc 1923)
THE STATE ex rel. BETTER BUILT HOMES MORTGAGE CO. v. JAMES N. McKELVEY,
Director of Public Safety of City of St. Louis.
Supreme Court of Missouri,
In Banc.
ZONING ORDINANCE: Invalid. For the reasons stated in the companion cases of City of St. Louis v. Evraiff,301 Mo. 231, and State ex rel. Penrose Investment Co. v. McKelvey,301 Mo. 1, the "Zoning Ordinance" of the city of St. Louis isheldinvalid, as not constituting an authorized exercise of the police power. [GRAVES, J., concurs in the result, and bases this limited concurrence upon the grounds stated in his separate opinion in State ex rel. Penrose Inv. Co. v. McKelvey; JAMES T. BLAIR, RAGLAND and WHITE, JJ., dissent, for the reasons expressed by WHITE, J., in the Penrose Case.]
Mandamus.
PEREMPTORY WRIT AWARDED.
Conway ElderandLeahy, Saunders Waltherfor relator.George F. HaidandOliver Sentifor respondents.Atkinson, Rombauer Hill, Amici Curiae.Page 131
WALKER, J.
This case, as in City of St. Louis v. Evraiff et al. and State ex rel. Penrose Investment Co. v. McKelvey, Building Commissioner, involves the question as to the validity of Ordinance No. 30199 of the city of St. Louis, designated as the Zoning Ordinance. In those cases we held the ordinance to be invalid as not constituting an authorized exercise of the policy power. The issue here being the same as in those cases a like conclusion must follow.
Our peremptory writ should therefore issue and it is so ordered.Woodson, C.J.,andDavid E. Blair, J.,concur;Graves, J.,concurs in the result;James T. Blair, Ragland,andWhite, JJ.,dissent for reasons expressed byWhite, J.,in Penrose Case,301 Mo. 1;Graves, J.,concurs in separate opinion.
GRAVES, J. (concurring).
In this case I concur in the result of the opinion, but base this limited concurrence upon the grounds stated in my separate concurring opinion in State ex rel. Penrose Investment Company v. McKelvey,301 Mo. 1.