*2 both, possibilities as Degnan, E. oil of and James land. Several Lawler tracts Osear appellant improved Standard land in which Angeles, Cal., have of for streets Los been upon expensive which residences Oil Co. being been and are developed in the vicin- both Osbnrn, F. Mitchell Marvin M. ity appellants’ of golf land. Three courses appellant Marble- Angeles, Cal., of for Los abut dwelling on land. The nearest house Co. head Land drilling on of one the tracts land to the of City Fred- Atty., and Werner, Erwin P. rig upon erected appellants’ 1,100 land is of City,Atty., Schrader, both erick Von Asst. Appellants’ feet. pur- for land residence Angeles, Cal., appellee. for Los $10,000 worth If oil poses per about acre. WILBUR, Circuit thereon, pro- Before RUDKIN discovered value of oil Judge. SAWTELLE, District Judges, therefrom, according opinion of duced experts upon based upon oil-producing lands WILBUR, Judge. structures, Circuit same or geological similar many of millions dollars. enjoin equity filed a Appellants bill Company paid Standard Oil the Marblehead appellee enforcing zoning ordi- from a Company Land $65,000 cash for said oil by nance terms of which the oil well drill- lease, and in ex- addition thereto has made ing operations of appellants were declared penditures in proposed connection with the illegal land in the zone owned wherein the drilling operations Company aggregating $136,- Land appellant Marblehead The lease appellant opera- located. This land is was obtained and leased begun tions after Company Oil California of Standard of enactment an ordi- provides sinking oil which for the of nance which will lease hereinafter to, be referred and, excluding upon property, portion if oil is found (cid:127)wells said of the appellants’ lands production provides of oil thereon, Upon zone. therefrom. the trial evidence was adduced as to effect upon property neighborhood of the Appellants that, deci concede since the proposed drilling operations. This evidence Supreme sion in Euclid Am consisted of photographs showing con- Realty 47 bler S. Co., U. S. Ct. appellants’ dition sur- and of the appellee 54 A. L. R. L. rounding areas purpos- devoted has ordinance. enact es, the buildings character of erected there- do so to on, and recognized upheld by Supreme upon the effect the value of the erty Court in Zahn Public subdivided Works, Board reside-nee purposes, of Ct, App 47 S. proposed 71 Ed. 1074. drilling operations; and, ad- ellants, however, that the situation contend dition, certain evidence was offered show as disclosed shows evidence the extent of the fire hazard resulting from giv attempted police power exercise operations and the effect releasing en is so instance unreasonable and gases natural which reasonably an- an exercise that the ordinance ticipated from drilling successful operations. should be declared void the court On the of fire hazard, one of the infringement upon rights the constitutional appellants’ witnesses, R. Morrison, H. testi- appellants, that their ** fied as follows: That is a “* from process thus taken them due slight fire putting hazard in well, down a test support claim law. or but such hazard from results lack of fore- unreasonable, rely dinance is sight and on the carelessness drill- certain uncontroverted facts: er and that fire can prevented by keeping Appellants’ land lies about seven miles the hole full rotary weighting mud and distant the heart of the An- Los bymud chemical сompounds, barytes, such as geles, Broadway. Appellant at Seventh and prevents escape gas pre- Company’s Land Marblehead con- ignition sparks vents the resulting from acres, tains about Oil Standard friction of rotary, exercising and also Company approximately lease covers precaution moving the boiler back from acres, including the land the Marblehead when nearing completion the well of the hole Company. Land This has heretofore prevent ignition farming small amount operations, used gas escape; prac- possibilities now has there is believed as oil land. An danger tically ignition no resulting has been erected thereon derrick electricity derrick; the use purpose determining about developing greatly mainte- depreciate; fire around Company has the Oil operation plaintiffs’ years.” nance or оil wells or three last two derrick drilling prospecting said or the by the Johnson, called Z. The witness L. hydrocarbons said oil, or other *3 “ * * * danger That appellee, testified: property produce would would noises which wells, from bringing in new of fire occurs persons owning property be obnoxious to high gas pressure under the or fire boilers surrounding prop- near plaintiffs’ to or said running rock of the and friction the well erty living in that said noises would make if causing sparks; that through casing, nearby surrounding conditions oh such or result wild, it would run the well should property to and would be much less desirable and that property, the destruction of the greatly reduce value of the said surround- area drilling given occur; does that ing gas property; drilling oil, for that three well to acres, one five approximately acres hydrocarbon plaintiffs’ or other on substances sufficient; considerable that be would prоperty said or maintenance of oil wells and drilling wells, test noise results operation plaintiffs’ on and of the same tools; lifting lowering and steam property said would á fire hazard create night, day and drill customary that it is during which would be imminent at all times activities such result from and oil fumes n that operation, drilling of the maintenance or op by the off can be shut the fumes that oils, extracting purpose said wells for the dust it; that they for prepared erators if gas hydrocarbon substances, or in that other and running trucks results from the hack great danger would be such oil wells customary in it is well, that forth to catching during drilling opera- on such fire roads and dwellings such oil drilling near tion that such imminent fire hazard raising of considerably prevents oil that property surrounding, would cause the near- dust.” adjacent plaintiffs’ property or said upon the findings of fact The court made purpos- become less desirable residential the effect issues, and, with reference greatly depreciate es would the value surrounding upon the drilling operations ; adjacent surrounding property the said or follows: be as property, found the facts to operation wells or maintenance oil “ * * * plaintiffs’ drilling property on the said or the property said That plaintiffs’ property of said oil wells on said surrounded already partially plaintiffs is would constitute a is not an en- very nuisance and including developments, some residential terprise pursuit or suitable carried on located expensive residences high class plaintiffs’ property. said That the nearby which subdivisions within the tracts or plaintiffs’ property curbs, property said streets, improved highly with have been surrounding adjacent rolling thereto is utilities; nei- sidewalks, lights ther, and other and contains attractive inclines any and beautiful plaintiffs’ prоperty nor said greatly and declines which in- add resi- immediately adjacent is of property' uses; plaintiffs’ prop- dential character of the said such character, nor devoted to dustrial erty surrounding property, or not there problematical whether and cause hydrocarbon substanc- the same any extremely adapt- to be oil, or other suitable and plaintiffs’ able for purposes landscap- the surface es located beneath quantities; commercially paying ing in property therewith; connection loca- centeg hydrocarbon oil, gas wells tion of or oil derricks that ho and oil tanks or maintained developed, operated of such a district would cause ever the attractive property. appearance plaintiffs’ said property said de- to be stroyed and would cause the whole of the sur- of oil оperation or maintenance “That the rounding territory unsightly to become property the drill- plaintiffs’ said or wells on appearance; ugly impossible it is prop- on said prospecting for oil for or drill operate for oil plain- and to oil wells on atmosphere in the said cause would property tiffs’ said or oils, gas to extract or surrounding plaintiffs’ said ' hydrocarbon other from plaintiffs’ substances polluted to become contaminated said using in without odors; connection these ob- fumes and obnoxious ¡therewith unsightly discomfort, tall and oil derricks and noxious odors would cause serious using power connection therewith damage and inconvenience-to owners power; animal other than surrounding plaintiffs’ said necessary to used in living connection with all of conditions and would make drilling operations or these the maintenance properties would on said less desirable and "of surrounding the wells for hereinabove set cause the said value of the gen- would seem in little that in the doubt require apparatus forth .be growth eity oE terests of such future amount power and that the eration of such ap- regulate growth compe in order to it is generated each of he or tent authorities well to determine that va drilling paratus for the cant extracting gases, oil be included in a residence dis purpose wells trict, and, greater included, when so that structures hydrocarbon would be substances other than those authorized horsepower.” than five though cannot erected thereon even experts sus- Appellants introduced also owner desires and the erection of oil- land was their tain contention that forbidden, structures the maintenance of introduced bearing defendants land. The legal might but otherwise therein, business *4 it tending show that experts to of evidence profitable more than the use of to the owner connection land, in that was not oil property purposes. This been'drilled wells had showed that three oil by was established decision of the Su the 4,000 over depth of neighborhood to in that preme Court in Zahn v. Board of Public ease, striking oil. each without feet Works, supra, sustaining of the the decision theory disposed of on the however, be must Supreme of the state of California in oil-bearing land, and appellants’ land is that 497, 388, citing Cal. 234 P. Miller appellants the preventing that ordinance the Board of Works, Public 195 Cal. 234 P. in effect has drilling operations thereon from 381, 38 appears A. L. 1479. It the R. from property as destroyed of said value the opinion in these cases and from the record land. by the land appellant that owned the and in the facts Assuming moment that neighborhood the thеreof vacant was at the court, by trial correctly the determined zoning time the of enactment of the ordinance eity pass the or appellee right of the the- buildings which limited the class of be confined question need not in dinance could by was erected thereon. claimed It police phase of recently developed more the the in ad that ease that their land zoning ordinances power involved joined boulevard, artery Wilshire “a main future direct the in a measure to undertake through beyond travel city, the and that predicated may also be eity, but growth of the property if such were available for business protect in city its power of the upon the purposes greatly its market value would be * * * noxious hazard and fire habitants from enhanced. effect evi- by say, exercised power is gases; that neighborhood show dence entire enacting ordinance city authorities passage zoning at the of the time ordi- police may upon that branch of the be based largely unimproved, nance was but in the safety. It public which deals with the power rapid development.” course of As it that, under the authorities cannot be doubted questioned appellants’ land is suitable prop a menace to the health if there is very therefor, residences and valuable drilling proposed erty of its citizens development the line of of resi- long police power as operations, under districts, that, dential it would seem clear un- and exercised established general power eity regulate der the power. police See exercise of a valid growth, appellee eity its would be enti- Cemetery Ass’n v. in Masonic cases cited appellants’ the use of tled to restrict (cid:127) F.(2d) 950, Gamage (C. A.)C. permitted to such were included, zone in which it had been unless police power of the The second branch under all the circumstances as disclosed upon which the evidence such result would unrea- recently developed phase more based justiEy sonable as to the inter- power which the interests of police ference of the under well-established permits to so limit general welfare police power city. limitations of the can be of structures which erected the class surroundings In view appel- of business which can be main kind and the property, lants’ fact that it is in the line areas or various zones within tained of the residential growth future regulate and control the Angeles, expensive dwellings eity. Los al- zoning <revelopmentof the ordi ready neighborhood, erected largely as such looks to the future de been nance adjacent рroperty improved has been pro rather to a velopment of the than opening paving sidewalking streets pre-existing status. With refer tection eity same, would seem to there be little council of Los doubt ence to right zoning ordinance, of the ordi- Angeles to enact a there veloping prevent appellants’ mineral of his land. the use of resources nance to In plants each manufacturing ease is a value there definite loss of for industrial and prohibited by be which is as a which would or the erection works Constitution taking develop- compen- entirely harmony private property with the out sation taking neighborhood. unless such is in the exercise ment of the police power. question, -the The fundamental record, by this The situation disclosed i then, case, in each owner whether or not the with the primarily however, does deal has deprived by lеgitimate right improve appellants’ to' the-police exercise of state thereon, rather buildings erection of effort promote of its welfare produce owner to with the citizens. If between difference therein soil the minerals contained. the taking of zon- increment unearned called attention is our connection taking inherent ordinances Pennsyl Court in Supreme decision value of the soil or its arises from contents, it Mahon, 260 U. S. Co. vania Coal might the fact unreasonable be deemed R. 28 A. L. Ed. 67 L. prevent developing a man from natural Legis passed wherein statute gas upon pro- his and reasonable Pennsylvania held the state of lature of gas works, Pennsylvania hibit the erection of because Coal taking invalid, as *5 gas former works in other case can erected be coal which it right to mine Company its city, while in suitable zones or districts sur in the the it had made the in deeds reserved gas reproduced the of it assuming the ease natural must be deed grantees face, the ' might in It which it damages land exists. of which waiving claims risk and reason- an is the therefore be held that ordinance mining operations of might from result requires able where it Legislature prohibited the establishment of grantor. state gas or interfere works oil refineries in a certain zone as would mining such fashion in prohibited others, and in by grantees might unrea- the and be erected the structures with giving to the effect prohib- in sonable and upon surface, thus therefore because it the void the enjoyment of security producing gas in ited an from grantees a the owner natural bargained nor they had not from land in it In which the which located. ei- surface grantor of the depriving for, and paid event, however, ther question there can be gran in its deed to the right it had reserved right city cоntrol or inherent so unreason this was It was held that tee. prohibit production, provided such it is done power it police that an exercise of able arbitrarily. reasonably and In that event not guar rights of the constitutional was violative upon fall the loss must the owner whether'it Pennsylvania- Company Coal anteed prevents erecting him from or es- structures arriving con at this void. therefore and tablishing erect industries which he desires to called Supreme attention clusion, the establish, prevents whether it him from or or question in not did that the statute to the fact developing potentialities the inherent his “is land the surface apply to where owned proceeding dis- land. a further Before with underlying coal dis owner of the and is distinguish be- cussion, be well fifty than hundred and feet more one tant body legislative tween functions any improved property belonging to from police deposited and which is person.” any other While this decision deals may appeal which citizen the-courts to right in develop of an its with the owner in the event his is taken without by producing potentialities therefrom herent compensation an unwarranted exercise wealth, does not seem be mineral there police power. depriv principle between distinction develop body in legislative owner an intrusted with the regulation qualities of herent has wide discretion which can police power prohibits erecting upon an owner be interfered the courts. Their will, structures which he 'his land believes pursuance laws or ordinances enacted in will, fact enhance the value his police power strong are invested awith property. validity. presumption question If as legislation or not the whether is unreason is conceded in It the ease Zahn Los supra, aрpellants’ unequal able or or an Angeles, exercise fairly debatable, legislation worth more for business than is must upheld Zahn purposes, taking residence be as valid. v. Board of of this Public just Works, difference value was. real as in 71 L. prohibited supra, an case where owner is from de- Ed. cases therein cited. question undeniable, is and therefore the our consideration question precluded inquiring into the of court not the reasonableness is whether then validity avowedly of an ordinance within the fairly debatable. question is police power city, arbitrary, if not un- ref matter with First, consider we will unequal. reasonable, The fact that hazard. On of fire erence city large occupies amount might concluded hand one more than 40 miles in a adjoining prop territory, extends danger to was no substantial nearly upon direction, north south gas and oil production up miles in an at its ex- depends east west direction This, however, land. appellants’ n treme boundaries, an area of 450 and contains amount question as to the uncertain miles, square large areas devel that there would be pressure which gas and unoccupied zone, land in the oil by penetrating oped therefrom knowledge questions presented not material to the common is a matter of It strata. appellants’ property case at wells, particularly bar. The cases that in some development city, beyond line of whose gotten control territory, new rapidity unprece- almost a well in fire. Such in disastrous resulted persons intoler dented. The uniform rule city is that great would an heart seeking avoid of an could the effect is conceded nuisance, and it able must show it is it unreasonable council in the exercise because prohibited them, outlying predi- rela unreasonable as and cannot power. In police of its upon their claims fact the ordi- cate it is obvious tively unsettled entirely may be less, if nance unreasonable to others. much fire hazard presumptively negligible. The council Appellants their claim to in base a hazard was theory acted validity court, after trial substantial. The real and ground of Los An *6 the council it be a fact that hearing evidence, held to the geles permitted upon them to enter» their real and substantial. hazard was the fire project development, then, oil after testimony this conclusion. sustain There is to they expended $136,000 preliminary in court, act question is whether this then work, repealed permitting them to con ing upon evidencein record the the the develop an pro and enacted ordinance oil knowledge con trary, upon hibiting they In the same. connection this oil, cerning production shall declare rely very strongly on the case Dobbins city council and the conclusions of the the Angeles, Los S. 25 19 U. arbitrary and unreasonable judge so trial passing ques L. Ed. Before 169. this disregarded justly de they may as tion, additional facts should be stated. appellants. In termining rights of the the appellants’ in area which is lo- in that, be observed it should this connection city of Angeles, cated was annexed to the Los upon conclusions of trial the the passing part 1915 and in 1923. in Thereafter ap legislative body, the local court, or the annexing was an ordinance enacted this terri- great weight give to the should pellate tory already residence zone to the established lo local authorities and the determination city Angelos. Application in the of Los was they especially are with familiar cal courts by appellants city planning made the the Swasey, 214 Welch v. U. S. local conditions. city commission for recommendation to the 923; Laurel 91, 106, 29 S. Ct. excluding portion of an ordinance a council Cemetery S. Francisco, San Hill appellants’ land the residence dis- 515; 301, 54 L. Ed. Pat 30 S. Ct. permit thus trict, and the Pennsylvania, 138, 144, U. S. sone v. passed oil thereon. ordinance was in This 281, 58 L. Ct. Ed. by appellants’ land, except which the foregoing appear strip wide around From the it 100 feet the outer bound- very ary thereof, portions in the least could be said favor certain other not validity here, excepted were ques the ordinance is the material the resi- resulting ji(mj)Ffirehazard mining op ordinance, dence district. On the faith of this debatable, of noxious expenditures erations is the diffusion above mentioned were in- gases surrounding eventually, by offensive curred, protest into" the but reason of by dwellings neighbor- is established uneontradicted tes from owners of residences timony, utility appellants’ city repealed land for hood, the last-mentioned thoroughly reineorporated said established ordinance and land in residence district, effect, conceded, thus, making of the residence dis un- trend city which land in it had declared to be law- trict of the toward lawful that about -hy upon appellants changed ful appellants’ escinde there/ city acted. from/ action of being true, appellants effect of this That are with- remedy Stand- out council is to cause a loss to the direct unless on the whole it can be said Company amount ard Oil by final action of council, California these, included, expenditures. again The situation is some- their in the analogous zone, wholly what case residence disclosed unreasonable unjustifiable Angeles, supra, with this of Dobbins v. Los circumstances to be void. exceрtion, In this proper notable that in that ease the facts connection changes consider the situation of the stated bill were admitted sustained, parties brought about the ordinance ex- demurrer and the lower courts had cluding the allegation lands of notwithstanding from the resi- district, dence but allegations change policy in the bill. were to the ef- mere These or of only legislation, re- that, change not was there no however unfortunate the fect sult be to appellants, justify conditions after the enactment of ordi- does in declaring courts permitting an ordinance the erection of void ex- nance ercising legitimate police neigh- power. Dobbins, works Mrs. but that the The loss suffered appellants by occupied by refineries, etc., reason of borhood was oil change legislative policy the second no more a tak- council enacted ing of their purpose resulting than is ordinance, protecting not for the the loss them neighborhood, being deprived reason of people for the but right develop purpose granting monopoly, to another right gas company operating use their land for other than resi- another district. purposes. dence alleged no It and admittéd that there was other reason for the enactment Judgment affirmed. ordinance. In that ease counsel relied presumption validity SAWTELLE, in favor of the (concur- Judge District legislation legislative ring). and wise exercise of judgment ignored allegations tend- There in this case of the in that to show that the exercise to enact zon only unequal, case was unreasonable, ar- ing laws, highest courts of the states bitrary, unjust, corrupt. In the case and of government federal upheld at bar situation almost reversed. municipality place reasonable *7 city attempted pro- this ease show the to the upon property restrictions development with city ceedings planning before the commission in its own The limits. demands of modern pur- evidence there adduced life, growth urban the spirit, of civic the ever- pose sustaining city of the action of increasing necessity the coun- of social control for the cil, upon general based the welfare —all recommendation the of these factors have brought planning commission, an city about increased as reasonable under attention to the circumstances, planning. appellants objected Nowhere, perhaps, the to plan is such a necessary that ground evidence more city the that the than in like An Los geles, whose inquire larger area is many “court into than cannot the motives that of of the counties, and whose bаsic city development which prompted council has' the council to been that of a residential ordinance, community. enact the nor into the facts So' before long duly as the constituted the council at the authorities of time it acted.” this Whether or any city or of proceed other necessary fortify zoning it was to enact not to presump- the laws in a manner that is not validity arbitrary in favor of legislation tion the the deprive does not citizens determined, of their constitution need not but isit clear the that rights, al then court the will not appellants position interfere. to assert that Even in validity cases where the leg the motives the the legisla- enactment of the islative zoning classification for tion improper, they were do so, do not fairly debatable, legislative the judgment rely entirely' upon but the evidence as to-the must be allowed. Radice v. New York, 264 nature and character of S. 44 S. Ct. surrounding territory as demonstrating that was, however well intentioned, nothing There in the record to show or entirely has, and arbitrary. unreasonable It legislative even indicate that body acted .uniformly.been held arbitrarily that there is no vested law, warrant of and, permit right in or an being ordinance of the na- so, have not right courts ture here, involved which the review or annul action. judge The trial boundaries of testimony zone ruled out concerning residential were the manner in which, them; they must have realized that the original excepting also of the passage city’s development trend of by impli- dominant and which was effected ordinance that to interfere with or cheek property of allows cation growth city would harmful to as as rather than as industrial be considered whole, any record a that industrialization nothing in the there is residential, and growth area revoking of line of residential stands to indicate as it contrary plan the whole arbitrary than more permission was zoning commission. In the absence of appel- is admitted It granting of it. acting contrary, evidence the ordinance where- Company, Standard Oil lees ap- Los denied or- permissive rights allowed pellants drill for oil on their land mon- sums of dinance, expended .certain had logical part to be a up- seems drilling an oil well ey preparation growth, scheme and not an act prohibi- question, working hardship persons undue or cor- arbitrary tak- an no more tive ordinance porations. expended than was money ing arbitrary destruc- an permissive created rights tion RUDKIN, Judge (dissenting). Circuit money in large sums by the investment During lifetime, Judge DIETRICH his Square, Tract, Vista Glenville Monte Mar prepared opinion reversing in this case McCarthy-Beverly Hills, Walter G. Cheviot I below, the decree of the con- Military Pacific Center, and the Business stated, curred. For the I reasons there feel developments near real estate Aeademy, all majority opin- constrained to dissent from the appellants as to enough opinion Judge ion. The DIETRICH fol- the character affected lows : there. permitted appellants brought “The this suit to en- laws, formulating its join against them of a zon- enforcement attempt prohibit Angeles did Los Angeles, prohibiting already But drilled. from wells pumping drilling for oil within a certain district of the development in an area prohibit oil city; they will hereinafter be referred purpose involves heretofore used company company. the land the oil in which we cannot question, one different former is the owner and the latter is the les- Angeles acted with- city Los deny approximately see of tract of 290 acres that a held powers. courts have in its given within such district. The lease was selling his may prevent an owner’s explore oil, and, enable the lessee to if oil purposes when the value erty for business is found, municipal to extract limits it. cent, per property is 100 business tract, were extended to include proper- as residential value greater than the together lands, other re- Works, 195 Cal. Public ty, Zahn Board eity adopted mainder 1923. In S. 388; Id., 274 U. 497, 234 P. *8 general a its entire terri- question is simi- 1074; L. 594, Ct. tory prohibiting and within the residence complete not a de- There is case. lar in this business, -including zone certain classes rights, for trial struction drilling Originally for oil. tract- of this that the value found court thereby, affected $10,000 was at least purposes 15, 1926, on June the residence amendment de- value for industrial acre, its whereas per enlarged it, thereup- to and zone was include drilling oil,-was pure- is, velopment, subject it beeame tо the restriction. on ly speculative. response application made the land to company, city, passed Mar- March Company and the 31,1927, Oil The Standard exempting position portion Company are in no to another ordinance a Land blehead deprived permitting from the restriction and they misled or the tract have been assert They drilling Immediately right. knew the thereon oil. follow- constitutional 'aof ing passage of this ordinance and in re- surround- as to the facts thereon, high-class plaintiffs resi- liance executed several ing property to, up agreement of lease hereinbefore referred had been built whose val- districts dential (cid:127) terms thereof oil develop- pursuant oil greatly impaired would be ue company paid $75,000. the land vicinity. company to The must ment their company once entered oil at granting special The realized have constructing road, erect- and, in property, harm- would have a privileges themselves equipmerit with standard a derrick around on the those ful effeet
536 drilling, ad- securing territory other leases on its “In extreme limits the jacent aggre- city property, expenditures made a distance extends for $136,000 outlay upon part gating nearly 40 total miles from north south —a 1927, May 19, 20 $211,000. Thereafter, from east west, miles area em- and in nullifying apparently approximately purpose square for the braces 450 miles. in question permission ordinance was tract drill, another lies about miles west- 7 erly may heart passed purporting regarded what as the place city. While, seen, dis- it was company within the we partly reality no 1923, was in annexed 1915 and partly trict. this ordinance Whether portion of has stop ever been into purpose, need not subdivided effective we lots or blocks or city purposes; used for consider, August another 8, 1927, for on still upon it original house, and, but one with the amending passed ordinance was exception of oil-drilling enterprise here- permis- by repealing 1916 involved, it has always barren been either Thus con- 31,1927. ordinance of sive March exclusively purposes. or devoted to farming purport- group with a fronted ordinances acres) The entire area (approximately 400 put enterprise, ing to an end to their company’s covered the oil leases meas- plaintiffs, 1927, commenced on. December urably compact may as a visualized ineffective for suit, this to have them declared square a rectangular with out of the tract cut enjoined purpose officers comer, comer, northeast the southeast city answered, enforcing them. comer, southwest por- the south central offerеd, hearing and, after evidence Westerly northerly tion. from the section question of largely upon, bears country golf extend clubs for distance safety relation of the restriction quarter varying from a mile, to a a mile community, welfare of and from the southern the Monte Mar denying below plain- entered decree Vista residence comprising tract 100 acres. dismissing relief tiffs bill. South of the southwest portion is another plaintiffs prose- so entered, From the decree country club. Projecting into leased appeal. cute area south for a distance about “Subject 1,200 to certain limita constitutional a strip feet is 300 or 400 feet wide be- tions, governing body city, invested longing occupied by to and the Pacific Mili-r tary Academy.' requisite with the For divide its authority, several feet hundred territory into south ..of the portion apparently other southeast residence and .districts. Eаsterly there are no residences. and north- Realty Company, Euclid Ambler 272 erly area, exception leased with the S. 71 L. Ed. A. L. northwesterly the extreme portion, Works, 1016; Zahn v. R. Board of Public territory is devoted to residential 274 U. S. 71 Ed. 1074. Ct. occupied degree by some residences. If the reasonableness of the classification is company’s The oil derrick little is located fairly debatable, afford re the courts will boundary more than feet east of the west governmental power lief. But 'the Id.. ' midway line of the leased area and about by zoning regulations interfere gen only and south. north residence section rights of a land eral owner by restricting the vicinity tract, the Monte Mar Vista character his use is unlimited, and from the derrick to the point of nearest questions aside, other such restriction cannot Upon about feet. the tract there are imposed if it does not bear a substantial approximately twenty-five residences, public health, safety, relation morals,, being 1,100 one closest feet from the derrick. *9 or Cambridge, welfare.’ v. Nectow To nearest of the other sections 183, 188, 447, 277 U. S. 48 S. Ct. 72 L. Ed. Upon approximately-half it is a mile. And may a be valid aggre- Monte Mar expenditures Vista tract general scope plan in its but violative of $600,000 grading, gating have been made in application inhibitions constitutional- in its public and the construction of paving, other specific piece property. Euclid v. improvements, and the thereon residences Realty Ambler Company, 365, 272 U. S. a cost of approximately were erected at 397, 114, 303, 47 S. Ct. L. Ed. 54 A. L. $785,000, nearby Neither it nor other resi- 1016; Cambridge, R. Nectow v. 277 U. S. have dence tracts sold or rapidly. built .up 447, 842; 48 S. Ct. 72 L. Ed. State of widely estimates, submitted Witnesses diverse Washington Roberge, 278 U. S. necessity specula- which of are measurably Each, L. 73 Ed. 210. сase S. Ct. tive, touching must be the value of the leased adjudged light of.its own facts. purposes, in for residence for oil. .and arisen, the ordinance under consideration af grounds sought jus- “The it is which fects the inherent value of a natural resource tify against drilling (1) prohibition only upon ground. which can be utilized passing of that some dust arises from the Ordinarily against enactments the conduct derrick; (2) that from the vehicles a certain line of business within a defined operation of the drill is attended with destroy may zone business, do not for it noise; (3) that, if is when encoun- designated be carried on within a for tered, emitted; offensive odors will be purpose. True, land values in the re (4) in contingency such there will be affected, gen stricted zone thus be but fire care is exer- additional hazard. Unless erally such values are but not inherent possibility sinking a cised there is of fire in increments; the nature of unearned well, but, considering test the distance community only taking is back a of that structure, dwelling closest house other which it has and the contributed, assuming precautions, the hazard due beneficiary still owner is value is respect question well community not he but the has Not created. thought negligible. to be While our consid- analogy Pennsylvania without Coal Com particularly has to with the eration do more pany Mahon, S. 393, existing derrick, proximity is in closer 1321, involving 28 L. Ed. any Mar oth- to the Monte Vista tract than is forbidding mining statute of anthracite point plaintiffs’ territory, er way cause, among coal in such as to other subjected no operation which has been things, any the subsidence of used structure public regulations, it is to borne in mind aas holding human habitation. the stat prohibition of the ordinance is abso- applied particular ease, ute invalid as to the operation excepted is not lute from its said: any though mаy derrick located at a it “ point operated much more remote hardly go ‘Government could on if to regulations having object strict some extent values incident to could the elimination or to a min- the reduction every paying not be diminished objectionable imum of the asserted condi- change long As rec- law. attempted by tions. The has not reason- ognized enjoyed some values are under an im- regulations accomplish it able what seeks plied yield police and must limitation prohibition, pre- the absolute thus obviously power. implied But limita- measure, least, serve a at of the value of the tion must limits have its the contract property right de- wholly which it process gone. due clauses are One fact for stroy. determining consideration in limits the extent of the diminution. it When aspects though “In two the ease is unusual reaches a certain magnitude, in most if not seen, entirely unique. acting As we not eases there must be an exercise of emi- ordinance, permissive in reliance compensation domain nent to sustain the $200,000 prepara- the lessee out over laid * * * act. drilling. suggested not tion While “ thus became as a con- bound opinion ‘It is our that the act cannot be tract, estopped any ap- or its officers as police sustained an exercise of power, propriate police power, exercise of the far as it mining affects the of coal under wholly circumstance is not immaterial. With places streets or cities where the * * intervening change conditions, have, we mine such coal has been reserved. against finding necessity, another To make it commercially impracticable to finding body necessity. the same of no mine certain coal has very nearly the same impair If latter does not the force of the effect constitutional purposes appro- former, tendency it at least priating has to show or destroying it. This we think that great free from we are assuming warranted in that the stat- * * * And, doubt. where the citizen has thus ute does. good large led ex- -faith make “ protection ‘The of private property in penditures, his investment should be de- the Fifth Amendment presupposes that stroyed way if there is other reasonable use, for public wanted provides that it *10 safety well-being which the of the shall be taken for such use without com- community fairly may be conserved. See pensation. A similar assumption is made Angeles, Dobbins v. Los 223, 195 25 U. S. the decisions the Fourteenth Amend- 18, 49 L. S. Ct. Ed. 169. Hairston ment. Ry. Danville Western & place, differing “In the 598, second 605, most 208 331, U. S. 28 S. Co., Ct. 52 L. of the cases whore controversy such has Ed. 13 Ann. Cas. 1008. When this wholly of its deprives to be that the owner of land is found seemingly protection absolute mineral content.’ natural ten- valuable tbe police power, qualified by tbe qual- extend nature is to dency of human escape conclusion- “We are unable private last at until more ification more and any that, prohibition in its absolute and- ac- cannot be disappears. But drilling operations upon tract of Constitu- way under complished magnitude respect in this to- and so situated with States. tion of the United purposes,, actually sections used unnecessarily To- drastic. “ that while at least is rule ‘The which we say least, conditions to ex- certain may regulated emphasize the- just strongly have referred far it will goes too tent, regulation if not outrun rule that restriction should * * * neces- taking. recognized as a sity, legitimate and that in exercise “ forgetting that danger ‘We reasonable police power there must be some public strong public imрrove desire to to be sub- public good relation between achieving enough is not to warrant condition private loss entailed. To. served - than constitu- a shorter cut desire may what extent the restrict the extrae- change. As way tional paying if at this- tion of oil it is found we need not already operation this is a de- is-- juncture present have said consider. The we only plaintiff exploratory; seeks disposed cannot be gree therefore —and certainty they have with whether to determine regard this we by general propositions. But jobbing’' It is not a eat’ or ‘stock oil. ‘wild beyond decided any of the eases going legitimate enterprise, scheme, intelli- this court.’ experience in gently by men of undertaken we are validity distinction “The outlay industry, large already who, recognized in considering seemingly made, shown their faith their works». Sebastian, 239 U. S. Hadacheck regulations oрeration With reasonable 1917B, 348, Ann. L. Ed. Cas. injury may be continued without substantial Id., 584, L. R. A. 927; 132 P. 165 Cal. morals, safety, health, the public or menace to expressly 1248; sustained 1916B, and was welfare, and under circum- or 241, 2 L. R. 82 P. In re Cal. Kelso, prohibition thought stances absolute Rep. 178, (N. S.) 796, 109 Am. St. A. If and. and unwarranted. to be Errett, F.(2d) Park v. Village of Terrace plaintiffs oil, when the discover considera- the latter ease the Circuit may given appropriately the ques- tion ‘There Appeals Circuit said: of the Sixth operation whether under mode tion between an or also substantial may difference known it be extracted seri- then prohibiting manufacturing dinance or ously affecting health, safety, com or well- pf in. a community, by setting large mercial business being district that at locality gases, in another conducted noxious inflammable otherwise equal profit advantage, creating constituting and an ordinance conditions a nuisance.”'