
    (114 So. 492)
    No. 28594.
    STATE ex rel. CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH v. CITY OF ALEXANDRIA.
    July 11, 1927.
    Rehearing Denied Oct. 4, 1927.
    
      (Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
    
    1. Municipal corporations 4&wkey;62l — Refusal of building permit because of special conditions held unwarranted (Act No. 237 of 1920, § 4).
    City’s refusal of building permit because of alleged special conditions, applicable exclusively to property on which 'relator sought to build, held unwarranted, in view of Act Tío. 237 of 1920, § 4, requiring that such permits be granted or refused according to uniform rules.
    2. Municipal corporations <&wkey;82l — Application for building permit may be made to city council (Act No. 237 of 1920, § 4).
    Under Act No. 237 of 1920, § 4, application for building permit need not be made to city engineer, but may be made to city council as “governing authority” of city.
    3. Mandamus <&wkey;44(3) — Applicant for building permit, refused by city council, held justified in applying for writ of mandamus, instead of applying to city engineer, where permit would be refused in any event.
    Where building permit would not be issued, no matter to whom application was made, applicant was justified in applying to court for writ of mandamus immediately on city council’s refusal to grant permit, instead of applying to city engineer, as law requires no one to do vain and useless thing.
    Appeal from Ninth Judicial District Court, Parish of Rapides; R. C. Culpepper, Judge.
    
      Mandamus by the State, on the relation of the Calvary Baptist Church, against the City of Alexandria. Judgment for relator, and defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Thornton, Gist & Richey, of Alexandria, for appellant.
    Hawthorn & Stafford, of Alexandria, for appellee.
   On Motion to Remand.

PER CURIAM.

In this case a motion to remand was filed similar in all respects and under the same circumstances as in State ex rel. Hundley v. City of Alexandria (our No. 28,593) ante, p. 624, 114 So. 491, and for the reasons therein assigned.

The motion to remand is therefore denied.

On the Merits.

ST. PAUL, J.

This case presents exactly the same issues as those presented in State ex rel. Hundley et al. v. City of Alexandria, ante, p. 624, 114 So. 491, this day decided; with but slight difference.

I.

The first difference is that in its answer defendant sets up that the permit was refused because of alleged special conditions applicable exclusively to the property on which this relator seeks to build. But section 4 of Act 237 of 1920, p. 456 (quoted in full in the case above mentioned), requires that such permits shall be granted or refused “according to uniform rules,” and hence the attempt of defendant to refuse a permit to this relator on account of alleged special conditions is unwarranted.

II.

The other difference is that the permit herein sought was applied for by petition to the city council, instead of to the city engineer as required by the city ordinance. The law above mentioned clearly authorizes the application to be made to the city or its “governing authority,” so that the application herein made to the city council sufficed. Moreover, the record shows that the permit would not have been issued, no matter to whom the application might have been made. And since the law requires no one to do a vain and useless thing, the relator was justified in applying to the courts at once upon the refusal of the council itself to grant it a permit.

Decree.

The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.  