Maguire v. Reardon

The Fourteenth Amendment does not prevent a city from demolishing and removing wooden buildings, built within defined fire limits in face of prohibitory regulations in force at the time. P. 273.

ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF . CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE. This was a writ of, error to review a judgment of the District Court of Appeal, California, affirming a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco refusing injunctive relief sought by the present plaintiffs in error. The Supreme Court of California had denied an application for further review. The case is stated in the opinion. In his brief he contended that, at the time of the erection of the building in question, there was no restriction on the material that might .be used, either under the city charter or under the ordinances on the subject then in force; that, if any such ordinance provided otherwise, it and a subsequent prohibitory ordinance were unconstitutional in that they unreasonably discriminated against structures of wood as compared with those made of other inflammable material,such as canvas,.paper and "beaver board,” and in that they did not forbid the city itself to erect wooden buildings. The city retained and continued its use óf such buildings within the very area in question. Also, the later ordinance under which destruction of the building was threatened, deprived the owners of their vested rights without due process of law. . The building was substantial, costing $12,000, erected without protest, and an oven, constituting a part of it and costing $700, had been installed with the consent of and under the written permit and supervision of defendants. Also, from the city’s permit to erect was to be implied a contract guarantee of the right to enjoy and maintain, which was now sought to be impaired. The ordinance was retroactive and unreasonable. The defendants were without legal power, and were estopped.