Case Name: THE STATE ex rel. BETTER BUILT HOMES & MORTGAGE CO. v. JAMES N. McKELVEY, Director of Public Safety of City of St. Louis
Court: Supreme Court of Missouri
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1923-11-20
Citations: 301 Mo. 130
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE STATE ex rel. BETTER BUILT HOMES & MORTGAGE CO. v. JAMES N. McKELVEY, Director of Public Safety of City of St. Louis.
Judges: Woodson, G. J., and David E. Blair, J., concur; Graves, J., concurs in the result; James T. Blair, Ragland, and White, JJ., dissent for reasons expressed by White, J., in Penrose Case, 301 Mo. 1; Graves, J., concurs in separate opinion.
Reporter: Missouri Reports
Volume: 301
Pages: 130–131

Head Matter:
THE STATE ex rel. BETTER BUILT HOMES & MORTGAGE CO. v. JAMES N. McKELVEY, Director of Public Safety of City of St. Louis.
In Banc,
November 20, 1923.
ZONING ORDINANCE: Invalid. For the reasons stated in the companion cases of City of St. Louis v. Evraiff, 301 Mo. 231, and State ex rel. Penrose Investment Co. v. McKelvey, 301 Mo. 1, the “Zoning Ordinance” of the city of St. Louis is held invalid, as not constituting an authorized exercise of the police power. [GRAVES, J., concurs in the result, and bases this limited concurrence upon the grounds stated in his. separate opinion in State ex rel. Penrose " Inv. Co. v. McKelvey; JAMES T. BLAIR, RAGLAND and WHITE, JJ., dissent, for the reasons expressed by WHITE, J., in the Pen-rose Case.]
Mandamus.
Peremptory writ awarded.
Conway Elder and Leahy, Sawidérs & Walther for relator.
George F. Haid and Oliver Senti for respondents.
Atkinson, Bombauer S Hill, Amici Curiae.

Opinion:
WALKER, J.
This case, as in City of St. Louis v. Evraiff et al. and State ex rel. Penrose Investment Co. v. McKelvey, Building Commissioner, involves the question as to the validity of Ordinance No. 30199 of the city of St. Louis, designated as the Zoning Ordinance. In those cases we held the ordinance to he invalid as not constituting an authorized exercise of the police power. The issue here being the same as in those cases a like conclusion must follow.
Our peremptory writ should therefore issue and it is so ordered.
Woodson, G. J., and David E. Blair, J., concur; Graves, J., concurs in the result; James T. Blair, Ragland, and White, JJ., dissent for reasons expressed by White, J., in Penrose Case, 301 Mo. 1; Graves, J., concurs in separate opinion.