Summary

George Sutherland Gorieb v. Fox — Opinion of the Court

The proviso, under which the council acted, also is attacked as violating the equal protection clause, on the ground that such proviso enables the council unfairly to discriminate between lot owners by fixing unequal distances from the street for the erection of buildings of the same character under like circumstances. We cannot, of course, construe the ordinance as meaning that the power may be thus exerted; nor may we assume in advance that it will be exercised by the council capriciously, arbitrarily, or with inequality.
Source: Wikisource

George Sutherland Gorieb v. Fox — Opinion of the Court

One set of owners determine not only the extent of use but the kind of use which another set of owners may make of thier property.'
And the court expressly declined (page 144 (33 S.C.t. 77) ) to consider the power of a city to establish a building line or regulate the structure or height of buildings.
Since upon consideration we are unable to say that the ordinance under review is 'clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare,' we are bound to sustain it as constitutional.
Source: Wikisource

George Sutherland Gorieb v. Fox — Opinion of the Court

The members of the city council, as a basis for the ordinance, set forth in their answer that front yards afford room for lawns and trees, keep the dwellings farther from the dust, noise, and fumes of the street, add to the attractiveness and comfort of a residential district, create a better home environment, and, by securing a greater distance between houses on opposite sides of the street, reduce the fire hazard
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature