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 Penrose Case.]
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 be invalid as not constituting an authorized exercise of the policy 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, C.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.
GRAVES, J. (concurring).
In this case I concur in the result of the opinion, but base this limited concurrence upon the grounds stated in my separate concurring opinion in State ex rel. Penrose Investment Company v. McKelvey, 301 Mo. 1.