The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1912-12-03
BU|lO|NG LINE
LAW Is INVALID
United States Supreme Cour;
ReverSes State Courts III
Eubank Case.
MAY BUILD TO STREET LINE
Ordinance Forbidding Building
on Taxed Property Held to
Be ConhscatOry.

Richmond's building line ordinance
was yesterday declared Invalid pS the
Supreme Court OF the United states al
Nasuington. While no definite state
mrnt could be secured last night, II is
GENERALLY understood that as a result
of the courts ruling buildings may
now be erected Out to the piOPert9
line in any part OF q" cltH, res"Iu-
less OF the petition o. adjacent proper
~ owners. IN the recent Nase OF the
Monroe Terrace Apartment House.
being erected at Laurel and Frankilh
streets. a change in plans was ne
cess.Satcd by the action OF property
owners on the block hNlng Il bulIC4Ae
line.
40 written opinion was handed down
by The supreme Court, Justice Nc
Kenna mahlng the simple announce
ment that the case had been reversed.
The test case was that o. j. l.. Eu-
bank against the citN OF Richmond,
which was appealed from the w:
ginia supreme Court of Appeals 10 iAe
Unfted states SupreEAe Court OF APP
peais at Washinston on the broad CON
stitutional ground Of conhscation OF
property without due process OF law
The case was argued in the supreme
Court about three weeks ago by city
Attorney Pollard.
History of Case.
Under the terms OF the ordinance the
Committee on Streets was empowered,
upon petition Of the owners OF two
thirds of the property on any block.
to fix line not less than five nor
more than thirty feet back from the
street. TO which line all buildings
thereafter erected on the block must
conform The ordinance was passed
at the instance OF certain residential
sections TO prevent the erection OF
stores projecting to the property line.
Nh Eubank. a grocer at Twenty
seventh and Broad Streets. purchased
from James Sloan the old Bodeker
property at the southeast corner OF
Twenty ighth and Grace Streets
which he remodeled. erecting an annex
or bay window projecting beyond the
line already established by petition
of the owners OF two-thirds Of the
property on the block. In the Police
Court he was ordered TO remove the
projecting portion of his building back
to the established line. The test case
involved the validity OF the whole
statute by which a building line is
established. Eubank was fined in the
Police Court which action was sus-
tanned in the Hastings Court and af-
Grmed by the state supreme Court OF
Appeals. from which appeal was made
TO the United States supreme Court on
the ground of alleged confiscaAion or
property without due process of law.
Victory for Eubank.
The result is regarded as Il great
victory by AIR. Eubank, who stated
last night that the contest had been
largely brough' about by spite work
on the part OF rertain of his neigh
bors The reversal OF the decision IT
is understood will ha D. the effect OF
placing 'ne costs of the long ntiga-
ton on the city.
City Attorney Pollard had no state
ment to make last night, there having
been no written opinion giving the
grounds by which the Supreme Court
reached its conclusions. Ii is consid
cred possible that the legal defects
tn the ordinance may be met by some
revision In its terms. and that Il may
b. re-enacted
Stress was laid by the attorneys
for Mr.. Eubank on the point that he
was required by the city to pay taxes
on portion Of his property which
he was not allowed 10 make use OF
for building or other purposes Until
the objectians are met however, all
building lines heretofore established
are invalid and void. II is believed
that the result will be TIE immediate
erection Of stores on Grace and other
residential streets on which business
has been encroaching for years. 1t
was the fight over erection Of stores
al Fifth and Grace Streets some years
ago which preclpitated adoption of the
ordinance which was yesterday de
clared invalid.