The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-03-28
THE POWER OF A CITY
TOREGULATE SIGNS
Can't Move One Unless it is
Dangerous.
SAYS SUPREME COURT
The Riggs Electric Sign Will Not be
Taken Down.
A DISSENTING OPINION BY JUSTICE CLARK
He Thinks That il is No Part of the Functions
of the Supreme Court of the State to Act
as Supervisory Board Of Public
Works. Other Opinions


ODinions were handed down by the
Supreme Court yesterday as follows:
Graves " Barrett, from Moore, al
firmed.
Muse V. Caddell. from Moore, new
trial.
Little Y. Ratlitf, from Arson. affirm
ed
State Y. Carter, from Robson, no
error.
Terrell V. Broadway, from Lenolr'
remanded
Lumber Co. V. Hines, from jones
reversed.
Darden V. Blount, from Greene, re-
versed.
Cheek V. Building and Loan Asso-
citation, from Durham, two cases, de-
cided in favor of plaintiff.
Geer V. Brown. from Orange, al
fir1ned.
Kennon V. Telegraph Co.. from Gull
ford, new trial.
State v Green. from Durham, re-
versed
State V. Higgs, from Wake. error
Strause V. Insurance Co., from fltt'
affirmed.
State Y. Davis. from Edgecombe, no
error.
The following cases were disposed
Of by per curtain order:
Worth V. Lancashire, from Cum
berland. affirmed.
McCaskill V. Lancashire. from
Cumberland, affirmed.
OF the above. the only case of local
interest is that of State V. Riggs.
But it is not Of local Importance
ONLY. Involving as it does the power
of municipal corporations to regulate
their streets, it must be OF interest to
every town in the State.
About a year ago the Board OF AT
dermen OF the city of 'alei2h
passed ar ordinance prohibiting
the suspension of signs across tht
streets. on the ground that they were
dangerous to pedestrians and nui-
Sance.
The ordinance was generally com
piled with, but Sherwood HiggS d Co..
who had a large electric sign, four
teen feet from the ground and secure
" fastened to the wall, declined TO re
move it. alleging that it was neither
dangerous nor nuisance to the eye;
and TO prevent its removal an injunc-
tion was sued out against the city au-
thorities before Judge Timberake.
This restraining order was made re
tnrnable before Judge Fred. Moore
He heard it and decided in Higgs
favor. The city appealed to the SUI
perior Court. Judge Hoke next
heard it and decided in favor OF the
city. Riggs appealed to the Supreme
Court. Now the Supreme Court de
cides in Higgs' favor, and against the
city.
The decision of the court is written
by Justice Furches. Justice Clark
writes a dissenting opinion.
Following is a brief digest of the
opinion of the court:
municipal corporation, being Il
creature of the Legislature. has only
such powers as are expressly given il
or such powers as are incident to o.
necessary in the execution of those
expressly delegated.
\ municipal corporation holds the
fee i'm the public streets in trust fo'
the use and benefit of the public, ant'
the mayor and aldermen. as agents
the Ecity. are authorized to keep the
streets and sidewalks in such cOndi
ton as to best serve the public WEI
fare, but in exercising this authorit'
they cannot arbitrarily interfere witt
the private rights of citizens when no
demanded by the public interest.
\ property owner has an easemen'
in his frontage upon a public street
subject to the government of the cit
in the interest and benefit of the pun
lie.
4 thing not per Sc nuisance is no.
rendered nuisance by an ordinanc
of the city declaring it a nuisance.
sign hanging II feet the sidewalk ant
sign hanging ii feet above the si'ie
walk and projecting feet. safely con
structed and securely attached TO thr
wall of the building. cannot be lawful
" condemned as a projection or con
Struction whereby the free
and safe passage of persons is him
dered. delayed, INSTRUCTED or in any
way endangered" and the owner o.
such sign. who refuses to move the
same, cannot be adjudged guilty of q
n M& MlMos0 81