Pritz v. Messer

Ohio Supreme Court
Pritz v. Messer, 3 Ohio Law. Abs. 331 (Ohio 1925)
Allen, Con, Cur, Jjh, Jones, Kinkade, Marshall, Matthias, Pay, Robinson, éóri

Pritz v. Messer

Opinion of the Court

ALLEN, J.

1. Laws enacted in the proper exercise of the police power, which are reasonably necessary for the preservation of the public health, safety and morals; even though they re-suit in the-impairment’ of the full use of property :by the owner thereof,-do not constitute ;,la taking of private property within the mean■ing of the constitutional requirements as to making compensation for the taking of prbp-erty for public use and as to the’deprivation ef property -without due process of law.

• 2. An ordinance enacted by a municipality under Article XVIII, Section 3 bf the Ohio Constitution and under Section 4366-1 to 4366-12, General Code,. dividing, the whole territory of the municipality into districts according, to a comprehensive, plan -which, ,in: the interest' of the. public health,- -public - safety. ■ and.- public morals, tegulates- the.uses and the location:(of .buildings, and. other . structure^.- and of prem-: ' ise* to be" used ‘.for’ ./trade,; Industry, residence, •dr other spéci&biu^bs^’the^héiglite'hulk orííecá-'tibn'Wf buildipgg .tóij; óthbF structures ,-tljece-te l be ¡;&Ke.cted _6r/álte^dr ’including- ’fjie .;percentage‘»f .lines, and the area of yards,¿courtsVand."other ’ spaces, and for such purpose diyjdeb'tlte/city-T*ti6 and area as ‘hr^-'jfuitéd’te 'carry but’ such"pur’'poses, atíd;-prbyMbs a method of administration therefor and prescribes penalties for the violation of such pro visions-,.-is, a, valid and ^institutional .enactment. ./ ¿/..,,

Judgment affirmed.

Marshall, C. J., Pay and'Kinkade, JJ., éóri-cur. ' Jones; -Matthias and Robinson, JJh,..con-cur in the judgment.- , . T ,,,,,†

Reference

Full Case Name
Emelia H. Pritz v. Frank Messer
Status
Published