## Facts

- Chicago enacted an ordinance barring livery, boarding, and sale stables on any “residence street” within 200 feet of a dwelling unless the operator first obtained written consent from a majority of property owners or residents on the block.
- Stratton and others operated a livery, boarding, and sale stable within Chicago on a block treated as residential.
- Defendants did not obtain the required written consents.
- The City sued to collect a statutory fine for the alleged ordinance violation.
- Defendants challenged the ordinance’s validity, arguing it exceeded municipal police power and unlawfully delegated regulatory authority to private neighbors.
- The trial court entered judgment for defendants, holding the ordinance invalid; the appellate court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether a municipality may, under its police power, prohibit or regulate livery stables in residential areas by conditioning operation on majority neighbor consent.
2. Whether an ordinance is invalid when it delegates to private property owners standardless power to permit or forbid another’s otherwise lawful use of property, producing unequal treatment among similarly situated persons.

## Decision

- The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for defendants.
- The court held the ordinance invalid and unenforceable.
- The City could not collect the fine because the ordinance conditioned a lawful business on the uncontrolled will of neighboring property owners.
- The ordinance was an improper delegation of legislative authority to private individuals and imposed an arbitrary, discriminatory restraint on property use.

## Legal Principles

- Police-power regulations must be reasonable and operate uniformly on persons similarly situated; measures that depend on private, unguided preferences are arbitrary.
- A municipality may not make a lawful property use contingent on unregulated neighbor consent; such a “private veto” is an invalid delegation of legislative power.
- An ordinance that allows different outcomes for similarly situated owners solely based on neighbors’ discretionary approval is invalid as discriminatory and not a proper police regulation.
- A city may address nuisances through uniform legal standards, but it may not leave the determination of permissibility to private parties on a case-by-case basis without objective criteria or official review.

## Conclusion

Because Chicago’s ordinance placed the right to operate a stable on a residential block within neighbors’ uncontrolled discretion rather than a uniform municipal rule, it constituted an invalid delegation and arbitrary discrimination, so the ordinance could not support the City’s attempt to impose a fine.


City of Chicago v. Stratton, 44 N.E. 853 (Ill. 1896)