Case Name: BOLAND et al. v. COMPAGNO et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1923-07-11
Citations: 154 La. 469
Docket Number: No. 25540
Parties: BOLAND et al. v. COMPAGNO et al.
Judges: ROGERS, J., takes no part.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 154
Pages: 469–473

Head Matter:
(97 South. 661)
No. 25540.
BOLAND et al. v. COMPAGNO et al.
(July 11, 1923.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 2, 1923.)
(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
1. Constitutional law <&wkey;>225(l) — Municipal corporations t&wkey;626 — Zoning ordinance held not to discriminate arbitrarily.
Ordinance of city of New Orleans, excluding any business on particular street between designated cross streets, except drug store, boarding house, apartment house, hotel, or bank, held valid, and not to make arbitrary discrimination, or deny the equal protection of the laws.
On Application for Rehearing.
2. Appeal and error <&wkey;1175(7) — Judgment not rendered on reversal of judgment refusing injunction.
Where, in answer to rule to show cause why temporary injunction should not issue against business, claimed to violate zoning ordinance, defendant denied that ordinance applied because of previous use of his building, but the court denied injunction on sole ground that ordinance was ultra vires and invalid, the Supreme Court, in setting aside the judgment, cannot render final judgment under Code Prac. art. 905, but must remand case for further proceedings in view of article 895, providing that Supreme Court can only exercise jurisdiction so far as it shall have knowledge of matters argued or contested below.
Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; Hugh C. Cage, Judge.
Suit by J. K. Boland and others against Charles Compagno and others. From a judgment refusing an injunction, ’plaintiffs appeal.
Judgment annulled, and case remanded on rehearing.
Henry, Cooper & Westerfield, .of New Orleans, for appellants.
Arthur Landry, of New Orleans, for appellees.
Henry W. Robinson, Ivy G. Kittredge, City Atty., and Rene A. Yiosca, Asst. City Atty., all of New Orleans, amici curise.

Opinion:
O'NIELL, C. J.
This is one of the cases in which a so-called zoning ordinance of the city of New Orleans is contested. The case is referred to 'in the opinion which we handed down today in State ex rel. Civello v. City of New Orleans (No. 25566) ante, p. 271, 97 South. 440.
The plaintiffs in this case own their residences, on Carrollton avenue, in the neighborhood of Maple street. The defendant Compagno owns property at the corner of Carrollton avenue and Maple street, where he has undertaken to establish and conduct a fruit and vegetable stand and an oyster counter. The establishment of any business (except a drug store, boarding house, apartment house, hotel, or bank) on Carrollton avenue between St. Charles avenue and Colapissa street, where Campagno's property is, is forbidden by Ordinance No. 5645, adopted January 13, 1920. As originally adopted, the ordinance excepted from the prohibition drug stores, boarding houses, apartment houses, and hotels, and by Ordinance No. 5867, adopted April 7, 1920, it was amended so as to except also banks.
Defendant contends that the ordinance is invalid for all of the reasons urged against the ordinance contested in the ease of State ex rel. Civello v. City of New Orleans (No. 25-566) supra. And he contends that the dis crimination in favor of drug stores, boarding houses, apartment houses, hotels, and banks is an arbitrary discrimination against other business establishments, and therefore deprives the proprietors of such other establishments of the equal protection of the laws.
The civil district court adjudged the ordinance in this, case invalid, and refused to issue an injunction. The plaintiffs have appealed, and the city attorney has taken part in the defense of the city's authority as amicus curiae.
Eor the reasons given in our opinion in Civello's Case, we maintain that the ordinance is a valid exercise of the police power. The argument that the exception made in favor of the proprietors of drug stores, boarding houses, apartment houses, hotels, and banks is an arbitrary discrimination in their favor and against the proprietors of other business establishments is not well founded. The exceptions may very well rest upon the favored establishments being not so objectionable as other business establishments, or may rest upon the necessity of having a drug store, boarding house, apartment house, hotel, and a branch bank in the neighborhood.
The judgment appealed from is annulled, and it is now ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the defendant Charles Compagno shall be, and he is hereby, enjoined and restrained from conducting a fruit or vegetable or oyster shop, or any other business forbidden by Ordinance No. 5645, as amended .by Ordinance No. 5867, at No. 800 Carrollton avenue, at the intersection of Maple street. The defendant is to pay the costs of this suit.
ROGERS, J., takes no part.