The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1878-01-05
Let US bear in mind Gallipolis.

IHE .TUBLIC oWS The SlhEElS.-1 ho
Norfolk Virginian publishes in full an
opinion OF the Supreme Court Of Appeals
OF Virginia, giving the reasons OF that tri-
bunal for very important decision Which
it.has recently rendered in the case OF the
Citv of NorfolE Us. Chamberlain. 1t con.
Germs every town and city in the Common.
wealth, and particularly Richmond, whose
City Council has granted to number OF
persons the privilege which the Court OF
Appeals decides no City Council anywhere
can grant to anybody. .CHAMBEELA1NE got
permission OF the City Council OF Norfolk
to build, and did build, the steps of a new
house SO as to extend over part OF the
sidewalk. Neighbors objected. The City
Council thereupon ordered the steps to be
removed. CHAMBERLAINE obtained an in.
junction, and this was afterwards made
neruetual. The case was taken to the Court
of Appeals, which decided, as before stated,
that the Injunction should be dissolved, and
OF course the steps must come down. The
| Court, inter alta, say:
"Public streets are not the property OF
the municipality, or OF the people OF the
municipality, but of the pu6Lic at large.
The Legislature may, and generally does, OF
right. give the supervision and control OF
streets to the local authorities, but the prop.
erty in the street is not in the municipality,
but in the public at large. The Legislature
OF the State alone represents the public at
large, and it alone has full and paramount
authority over all public Highways
81 am Of opinion that the Select and CON-
mon Councils OF the city Of Norfolk had no
authority to pass the resolution Of the 27th
Of May, 1867, granting permission to the ap.
pellee Chamberlain to occupy by the steps
of his building any portion OF public
street in the city Of Norfolk. There is no.
thing in the charter Of the city or In any act
Of the Legislature authorizing the use Of q
public street for private convenience or
profit"
aThe City Councils having no authority
tend the steps Of his building into the pub
| lie street, and the ordinance specially for
bidding it, such extension was an unau-
thorized obstruction OF public highway.
and nuisance which The corporate authori-
ties had a right to abate."
81 am, therefore, OF opinion that under
! the charter and under the general law the
! City Councils had the right to order the re-
moval of the steps from the appellee's build
Hing which projected into the street. But it
lis contended by the learned counsel for the
appellee in an argument Of much ingenuity
and learning that the injunction in this case
ought to have been awarded and perpetu-
4 ated upon two grounds. First, because to
lromoye the stems to his building would ne
| cessitate the removal OF the entire front wal!
| and involve irreparable damage to the whole
structure; and that inasmuch as he built
the house on the line OF the sidewalk,
with permission from the City Councils to
extend his steps out upon the sidewalk,
the city, having through Its representa-
tiyes granted such permission, should now
be estopped from asserting its right to re.
move them, particularly when such removal
will result in trreparable damage; second,
because the action OF the City Councils is
an unjust Discrimination, not general in lite
operation, but special, partial, and oppres-
fsiye. It lis sufficient answer to the FIRST
position to say that the resolution OF the
City Councils ia May, 1857, purporting to
l5give authority To place the steps In the public
Streets was simply ssltrG Uires, and could not
bind the corporation. The general principle
| OF law is settled beyond controversy that
/ the AGENTS, officers, or even the City Coun-
ell OF q municipal corporation cannot bind
the c0rporat ton by anF contract or act which
Ii beyond the scope of its powers, or en-
Ittrely foreign to the purposes OF the corpo.