Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

St. Louis Poster Advertising Co. v. City of St. Louis

St. Louis Poster Advert. Co. v. City of St. Louis, 249 U.S. 269 (1919)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1919-03-24
Topic
general

Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court. The first mentioned of these cases was brought by the plaintiff in error in a State Court of Missouri to prevent the City of St. Louis and its officials from enforcing an ordinance regulating the erection of billboards, on the ground that the ordinance is contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment in various respects. The suit was begun on March 21, 1914, and on May 22, 1917, a judgment of that Court dismissing it upon demurrer was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State. 195 S.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed St. Louis Poster Advertising Co. v. City of St. Louis. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
122 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Constitutional Law — Police Power — Billboards Billboards may properly be placed in a class by themselves and prohibited in residential districts of a city in the interest of the safety, morality, health, and decency of the community; a city ordinance regulating the size, height, spacing, setback, and permitting of billboards is a valid exercise of the police power and does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. 249 U.S. at 274
  2. Constitutional Law — Police Power — Safety The fact that a particular billboard owner has constructed his boards so as to eliminate danger from wind and fire does not exempt billboards from the power of a municipality to restrict or prohibit them, since such dangers may remain sufficient to justify the general rule. 249 U.S. at 274
  3. Constitutional Law — Police Power — Aesthetic Considerations Where the main burdens imposed by a billboard ordinance stand on grounds of safety, morality, health, and decency, a court will not deny the validity of relatively trifling requirements that rest in part on aesthetic considerations, such as a requirement of conformity to the building line. 249 U.S. at 274
  4. Constitutional Law — Police Power — Taxation A city may impose a high tax on billboards for the purpose of discouraging them; such a tax is not objectionable under the Constitution, especially where the city has the right to prohibit billboards altogether. 249 U.S. at 274
  5. Constitutional Law — Police Power — Contracts and Property Rights The validity of a billboard ordinance is not defeated by the facts that the boards stand on land owned or leased by their owner, that the owner holds existing contracts to maintain advertisements upon them, or that the size of board allowed is too small for standard posters and cannot be changed without affecting the business disastrously; such contracts are subject to legislation not otherwise invalid, even as to their incidental effect. 249 U.S. at 274
ST. LOUIS POSTER ADV. CO.v. ST. LOUIS,249 U.S. 269(1919)
39 S.Ct. 274
ST. LOUIS POSTER ADVERTISING COMPANYv. CITY OF ST. LOUIS ET AL.
ST. LOUIS POSTER ADVERTISING COMPANYv. CITY OF ST. LOUIS ET AL.
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT
OF MISSOURI.
Nos. 220 and 2.
Argued March 12, 13, 1919.
Decided March 24, 1919.
A city ordinance allowing no billboard of 25 square feet or more to be put up without a permit, and none to extend more than 14 feet high above ground; requiring an open space of 4 feet between the lower edge and the ground; forbidding an approach of nearer than 6 feet to any building or to the side of any lot than 2 feet to any otherPage 270billboard or 15 feet to the street; requiring conformity to the building line; limiting billboards in area to 500 square feet; and exacting a permit-fee of one dollar for every 5 lineal feet;heldwithin the police power. P. 274.CusackCo. v.Chicago,242 U.S. 526. Making billboards safe against wind and fire may not exempt them from the power of restriction or prohibition.Id. Such regulations may not improperly include incidental and relatively trifling requirements founded in part at least on aesthetic reasons, such as a requirement of conformity to a building line.Id. A high tax imposed by a city on billboards for the purpose of discouraging them is not objectionable under the Constitution.Id. It is not an answer to an ordinance regulating the size, etc., of billboards, that they are on land leased or belonging to their owner, or that their owner has contracted ahead to maintain advertisements upon them, or that the size of board allowed is too small for standard posters and that these cannot be changed without affecting the business disastrously.Id. 195 S.W. 717, affirmed.
THE cases are stated in the opinion.
Mr. Marion C. Early, for plaintiff in error and appellant, contended that this case differed,toto coelo, from theGunning Case,235 Mo. 99, upon which great reliance was placed by the city. In that case, though involving the same ordinances, the cornerstone of the decision was the finding that the billboards there under consideration were dangerous to public safety and injurious to public health and morals, and, because of that finding, the regulations were upheld as proper exercise of the police power. In this case,per contra, the allegations of the bill, framed with elaboration for the very purpose of avoiding that decision, and confessed by the demurrer, did away with the possibility of any such finding, showing conclusively that the billboards here in question are not dangerous to health, safety or morals, on any theory. Also, the case ofCusack Co. v.Chicago,242 U.S. 526, while laying stress upon the presumptions in favor of local action, concedes expressly the duty of this court to interfere whenPage 271that action, plainly and palpably, "has no real or substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or to the general welfare."Muglerv.Kansas,123 U.S. 661;Minnesotav.Barber,136 U.S. 313;Peoplev.Weiner,271 Ill. 74;Lawtonv.Steele,152 U.S. 133. Surely the presumption cannot be made conclusive without destroying all protection under the Fourteenth Amendment against local legislation asserting itself to be an exercise of the police power. This court has declared itself in duty bound to investigate whether the facts justifying such exercise actually exist.

There is nothing to justify the requirement that boards shall be 15 feet from the street line. This could only have relation to the danger of their being blown down, which is absent in this case. So of the regulation as to height; it has no possible relation to health or morals, but only to safety, and that danger is here eliminated. The fact that such boards in some cases may be carelessly constructed will not warrant their absolute prohibition, but only regulations to insure their safety.Passaicv.Patterson Bill Posting Co.,72 N.J.L. 285;Statev.Lamb, 98 A. 459;Statev.Whitlock,149 N.C. 542;Crawfordv.Topeka,51 Kan. 756;Peoplev.Weiner,271 Ill. 74;Chicagov.Gunning System,214 Ill. 628.

The restrictions as to nearness of approach to buildings and the space between billboards can only be referred to danger from fire — not present here; and, as regards the public health and morality, these boards are so constructed and maintained as not to constitute a nuisance in law or in fact.

The regulations requiring conformity to the building line can rest only on aesthetic considerations, and they do not warrant exercise of the police power.St. Louis Gunning Co. v.St.Louis,235 Mo. 99;Lawtonv.Steele,152 U.S. 133;Fisherv.Woods,187 N.Y. 90;Austinv.Murray, 16 Pick. 126;Peoplev.Murphy,195 N.Y. 126.Page 272

The cost of building-permits, in the case of billboards, is several hundred times what is required for other structures. This discrimination, apparent on the face of the ordinance, must be condemned as unconstitutional. The whole ordinance, so far as it deals with billboards, is based on no public policy, but on hostility to a legitimate business.St. Louis Gunning Co. v.St. Louis, 235 Missouri, (dissent) 208;Statev.Layton,160 Mo. 474.

Counsel cited and analyzed the following cases, in which billboard regulations were held void.Haller Sign Worksv.Training School,249 Ill. 436;Commonwealthv.BostonAdvertising Co.,188 Mass. 438;Peoplev.Green,85 A.D. 400;Varneyv.Williams,155 Cal. 318;Bryantv.Chester,212 Pa. 259;Chicagov.GunningSystem,214 Ill. 628;Curran Bill Posting Co. v.Denver,47 Colo. 221;Crawfordv.Topeka,51 Kan. 756;Passaicv.Patterson Bill Posting Co.,72 N.J.L. 285;Statev.Whitlock,149 N.C. 542.Mr. Everett Paul Griffin, with whomMr. Charles H. Daueswas on the brief, for defendants in error and appellees.
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the court.
The first mentioned of these cases was brought by the plaintiff in error in a State Court of Missouri to prevent the City of St. Louis and its officials from enforcing an ordinance regulating the erection of billboards, on the ground that the ordinance is contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment in various respects. The suit was begun on March 21, 1914, and on May 22, 1917, a judgment of that Court dismissing it upon demurrer was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State. 195 S.W. 717.Page 273The other case was begun a little earlier, on January 30, 1914, in the District Court of the United States, by a bill in equity substantially to the same effect as in the state case. The bill was dismissed upon motion on February 19, 1914. The two cases appear to have proceeded to a conclusion without any reference to each other, but as they involve the same parties and the same questions they have been argued as one case here.

The ordinance complained of is number 22,022, passed on April 7, 1905. It allows no billboard of twenty-five square feet or more to be put up without a permit and none to extend more than fourteen feet high above the ground. It requires an open space of four feet to be left between the lower edge and the ground, forbids an approach of nearer than six feet to any building or to the side of the lot, or nearer than two feet to any other billboard, or than fifteen feet to the street line, and with qualifications requires conformity to the building line. No billboard is to exceed five hundred square feet in area. The fee for a permit is one dollar for every five lineal feet. The bill states that the size of posters has been standardized and cannot be changed without great expense and that the limits in size fixed for the boards are too small for such posters and will affect the plaintiff's business disastrously. The billboards are all upon private ground owned by or let to the plaintiff. They are built to withstand a windstorm of eighty-three miles an hour, a greater velocity than any known in St. Louis, and the frames and facing are of galvanized iron so as to exclude all danger of fire. The plaintiff has contracts running from six months to three years binding it to maintain advertisements upon its boards. The defendants are proposing to tear down these boards unless the plaintiff complies with the ordinance. This is a greatly abbreviated statement of the case but is sufficient, we believe, to present the questions that we have to decide.Page 274

Of course, the several restrictions that have been mentioned are said to be unreasonable and unconstitutional limitations of the liberty of the individual and of rights of property in land. But the argument comes too late. This Court has recognized the correctness of the decision inSt. Louis Gunning AdvertisingCo. v.St. Louis,235 Mo. 99, followed in this case, that billboards properly may be put in a class by themselves and prohibited "in residence districts of a city in the interest of the safety, morality, health and decency of the community."Cusack Co. v.Chicago,242 U.S. 526,529,530. It is true that according to the bill the plaintiff has done away with dangers from fire and wind, but apart from the question whether those dangers do not remain sufficient to justify the general rule, they are or may be the least of the objections adverted to in the cases.235 Mo. 99.Kansas City Gunning AdvertisingCo. v.Kansas City,240 Mo. 659,671. Possibly one or two details, especially the requirement of conformity to the building line, have aesthetic considerations in view more obviously than anything else. But as the main burdens imposed stand on other ground, we should not be prepared to deny the validity of relatively trifling requirements that did not look solely to the satisfaction of rudimentary wants that alone we generally recognize as necessary.Hubbardv.Taunton,140 Mass. 467,468.

If the city desired to discourage billboards by a high tax we know of nothing to hinder, even apart from the right to prohibit them altogether asserted in theCusack Co. Case. Citizens'Telephone Co. v.Fuller,229 U.S. 322,329. As to the plaintiff's contracts, so far as appears they were made after the ordinance was passed, but if made before it they were subject to legislation not invalid otherwise than for its incidental effect upon them.Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co. v.Goldsboro,232 U.S. 548,558. The same thing may be said, apart from other answers,Page 275with regard to the alleged standardizing of the size of posters. In view of our recent decision we think further argument unnecessary to show that the ordinance must be upheld.Judgment in No. 220 and decree in No. 2 affirmed.