Coyne v. Prichard

Citations

• 272 Pa. 424
• 116 A. 315
• 1922 Pa. LEXIS 842

Syllabus

<p>Building laws — Municipalities—Cities of second class — Officers —Ministerial duties — Permits—Garage—Board of city planning —Acts of June 7, 1895, P. L. 185; March 7,1901, P. L. 20; June 10,1911, P. L. 872; May 18,1915, P. L. 29.7, and June 21, 1919, P. L. 570 — Mandamus—Nuisance.</p> <p>1. The authorities of a City of the second class have no right to refuse a permit for the construction of a garage because of the disapproval of the location by the board of city planning, where it appears that such board had not as yet made its final report as to the areas in which, various trades and business could be carried on, and no hearing thereon was had before the city council as required by the Act of Juno 21,1919, P. L. 570.</p> <p>2. Where an ordinance provides that an official named shall issue a building permit, when the applicant therefor shall have complied with all the requirements of the laws and ordinances, the duty of the official is merely ministerial, and if he refuses to issue the permit, mandamus is the proper remedy to compel him to do so.</p> <p>3. The fact that the proposed garage is to be built in a residential neighborhood, and that its occupation and use will constitute a nuisance, is no ground for refusing a permit.</p> <p>4. The question as to the legality of the alleged intended use must await determination in proper proceedings after such use is attempted to be made of the building.</p> <p>5. The fact that the permit may be useless to the applicant, is no reason for refusing to issue it.</p>