Peninsular Stove Co. v. Burton
This text of 189 N.W. 880 (Peninsular Stove Co. v. Burton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The plaintiff seeks to enjoin the defendants, who are officials of the department of building inspection of the city of Detroit, from enforcing the provisions of Act No. 884 of the Public Acts of 1919. The act is printed in full in the margin. The bill of complaint alleges that the act is unconstitutional and void for several reasons, among them, that the classification is so unreasonable and capricious as to be in violation of the “due process” clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions, and the “equal protection of the laws” clause of the Constitution of the United States. The trial court found the act subject to the claim thus made and granted the relief prayed for. From the decree rendered, defendants appeal.
[286]*286It is elementary that all property is held subject to the general police power to regulate and control its use so as to secure the) general safety and all reasonable provisions enacted for the prevention of and protection against conflagration is generally recognized as a proper exercise of such power. But legislation to that end must not be unreasonable or discriminatory. It must not single out any class of persons or things and arbitrarily impose burdens upon them not applying to others within the same general class.
The record shows that there are several kinds of heating plants, steam, hot water, warm air and stoves, [287]*287in which wood, coal or coke may be used as fuel. Out of these the legislature selected a class, warm air, for this special regulatory legislation. While the title indicates an intention to regulate all plants of this class, the first section of the act confines its operation to furnaces “inclosed in galvanized sheet iron.” Of this class an exception is made of those which are pipe-less or have but one register. We have, therefore, not only the selection of a class of heating plant but of a class of this class. To justify such action it must appear that some substantial reason existed for the regulation of this particular kind of heating plant not equally applicable to the others. Is there greater [288]*288danger of fire from a plant thus installed than from other warm air heating plants? The fire hazard due to the overheating of the furnace itself may be greater when it is inclosed in metal than in brick but no such claim can be made as to the smoke pipes or the pipes leading to the rooms or the registers.
It seems clear to us that the classification here made is not based upon any real or substantial distinction. No sufficient reason has been pointed out for exercising the supervisory control provided for in the act over the installation of a warm air heater inclosed in metal with more than one pipe which does not equally [289]*289apply to one inclosed in brick or one which has but one pipe.
The following Michigan cases will be found instructive. People v. Berrien Circuit Judge, 124 Mich. 664 (50 L. R. A. 493, 83 Am. St. Rep. 352) ; Simpson v. Paddock, 195 Mich. 581; People v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 197 Mich. 532 (L. R. A. 1918A, 797); Haynes v. Lapeer Circuit Judge, 201 Mich. 138 (L. R. A. 1918D, 233); Davidow v. Wadsworth Manfg. Co., 211 Mich. 90. The question presented is fully discussed in 12 C. J. p. 1128, and 6 R. C. L. p. 374. The cases from other jurisdictions are there collected.
We are at all times reluctant to interfere with the [290]*290acts of the legislative branch of the government but, when the rights of the people secured to them by the Constitution are affected thereby, our duty is plain.
The decree is affirmed, with costs to appellee.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
189 N.W. 880, 220 Mich. 284, 1922 Mich. LEXIS 902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peninsular-stove-co-v-burton-mich-1922.