King v. Davenport
Citations
- 98 Ill. 305
- 1881 Ill. LEXIS 258
Syllabus
<p>1. Police regulations in cities—power to prevent the erection and repair of buildings of combustible materials. ■ The delegation of legislative power to a city to prohibit the erection, placing or repairing of wooden buildings within limits prescribed by ordinance, without permission, and to direct and prescribe that all buildings within the limits prescribed shall be made or constructed of fire proof materials, and generally to define and declare what shall be nuisances, and to authorize and direct the summary abatement thereof, etc., is within the competency of legislative power, and authorizes the passage of an ordinance prohibiting the erection, or repairing of any building within the fire limits, with combustible materials, and providing for the summary abatement or removal of the same.</p> <p>2. Same—what may be interdicted in populous towns or cities. TJnwholesome trades, slaughter houses, operations offensive to the senses, the deposit of powder, the application of steam power to propel cars, the buildin» with combustible materials, and the burial of the dead, may be prohibited in the midst of dense masses of population, on the general principle that every person ought so to use his property as not to injure his neighbor, and that private rights must be subservient to the general interests of the community.</p> <p>3. An ordinance of a city passed in pursuance of legislative authority, establishing fire limits, and declaring a wooden roof put on a building thereafter within the fire limits, to be a nuisance, and requiring the city marshal, under an order from the mayor, to remove the same, is a reasonable exercise of the police power of the Stqte, and has the force and effect of a statute, when set up in justification by the marshal in removing such a roof.</p> <p>4. Same—summary abatement without previous trial by jury. As the summary abatement of nuisances is a remedy which has ever existed in the law, its exercise can not be regarded as in conflict with
Judges: Sheldon, Walker
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
21 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- First National Bank v. SarllsIndiana Supreme Court· 1891-09-22· cited 67×
- Baumgartner v. HastyIndiana Supreme Court· 1885-03-13· cited 63×
- County of Cook v. City of ChicagoIllinois Supreme Court· 1924-02-19· cited 38×
- Durand v. DysonIllinois Supreme Court· 1915-12-22· cited 37×
- Mathews v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri· 1894-03-24· cited 36×
- City of Nokomis v. SullivanIllinois Supreme Court· 1958-09-18· cited 26×
- Sings v. City of JolietIllinois Supreme Court· 1908-12-15· cited 18×
- Griswold v. BregaIllinois Supreme Court· 1896-03-28· cited 17×
- City of Chicago v. Reuter Bros. Iron Works, Inc.Illinois Supreme Court· 1947-09-18· cited 16×
- Whitmier & Filbrick Co. v. City of BuffaloU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western New York· 1902-11-05· cited 14×
- Charles v. City of ChicagoIllinois Supreme Court· 1952-11-20· cited 12×
- Lemmon v. Town of Guthrie CenterSupreme Court of Iowa· 1901-01-21· cited 12×
- City of Chicago v. GarrettAppellate Court of Illinois· 1985-09-03· cited 8×
- Nazworthy v. City of SullivanAppellate Court of Illinois· 1894-04-28· cited 4×
- Berry v. DeMarisSupreme Court of New Jersey· 1908-06-08· cited 4×
- Vendley v. Village of BerkeleyIllinois Supreme Court· 1961-03-29· cited 3×
- City of Chicago v. Mutual Electric Light & Power Co.Appellate Court of Illinois· 1894-12-06· cited 1×
- Mutual Union Tel. Co. v. City of ChicagoU.S. Circuit Court· 1883-03-15· cited 1×
- City of Carmi v. MillerAppellate Court of Illinois· 1912-06-05· cited 1×
- Griswold v. BregaAppellate Court of Illinois· 1895-02-12
Cites
5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Den Ex Dem. Murray v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co.Supreme Court· 1856-02-19· cited 831×
- Hart v. Mayor of AlbanyCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors· 1832-12-15· cited 91×
- Blair v. ForehandMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1868-10-15· cited 71×
- Inhabitants of Watertown v. MayoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1872-01-15· cited 66×
- Vanderbilt v. AdamsNew York Supreme Court· 1827-05-15· cited 37×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.