Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1915-06-26
SUPREME COURT MAKES RULING
OF IMPORTANCE 70 IOWA
MUNICIPALITIES.
PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE NO
. RIGHT 70 OCCUPY STREETS
City Councils Given Authority to Close
or Refuse to Permit Unnecessary
Areaways or Stairways Leading to
Basement Rooms-court Dissolves
Injunction Secured by Owner.
Special to Times-Republican.

Special to TimeS-Republican.
Nevada, June 26.-In decision
which was handed down a day or so
ago in the case of William Callahan
VS.. the city of Nevada, the supreme
court of Iowa definitely decided the
rights of the cities of the states to con-
troll the streets and alleys and refused
request of the plaintiff to establish
rule for the larger cities that area
ways and outside stairways should be
permitted that basement space might
be utilized.
While the court did not make def
mite ruling, yet it says that in the
larger cities, when permanent walks
and curbings are being constructed,
there is tendency toward eliminat-
ing areaways and stairways. In any
event, however, it holds that the city
authorities have the power to revoke
permission given to use any portion OF
the public street.
In this case, Mr. Callahan, who is the
owner of building at the corner OF
Lynn and Lincoln avenue, was using
the basement of his building as bar
Der shop with an entrance both on the
south and on the east. When the or
dinance was passed for the construc-
ton Of the new and widened perma-
nent sidewalks on Lynn street, prac-
tically all areaways and stairways
were ordered closed, the Callahan
stairway among them. Mr.. Callahan
took his objections before the council
and they were overruled.
Injunction Secured.
The walk was laid under protest and
the stairway closed. Mr.. Callahan took
the matter into the district court and
secured an injunction against the city.
restraining them from interfering with
his building and its entrances. The
city appealed the case and the higher
court dissolves the injunction.
In the ruling the court sets out
clearly what rights cities have in ref
erence to permitting the use of the
streets and alleys to private parties.
It says in part:
There is no statute In this state au-
thorizing towns to grant individuals
the right to the use Of their streets for
private purposes. These municipalities
hold their streets in trust for the pub
lie and cannot put them to any use
inconsistent with street purposes.
at may, in its discretion. permit ex-
cavations under sidewalks which do
not interfere with public travel. and
exact compensation for the use there
Of. and may also license area and cell
liar ways and; doubtless bay windows
| extending over streets and alleys. pro-
viding they do not unnecessarily inter-
fere with the rights of the public; but
no such license for purely private
purpose is irrevocable. The same power
that grants 1t may revoke it. and If
one enters upon street without per-
mission and makes excavations there
on and erects structures thereover, the
governing body may order the removal
of the obstruction or the closing up Of
the excavations.
"As no property owner is compelled
when erecting a building to afford an
abutter either light or air. there is
nothing in the PLAINTIFFS proposition
that the areaway in question should
not be closed because 1t deprites him
Of light in his basement"
This case has been a long drawn out
one and has been watched with inter-
est not only by the people of Nevada
who were fully acquainted with the
circumstances butNby attorneys and
municipal officers over the state who
were not exactly clear on the matter.
At the time Of the closing Of the area
ways there were number of other
directors and suits were threatened,
but the Callahan case was the only one
that ever materialized.