The opinion
On Petition to Reheae.
Upon the original consideration of this cause we examined every authority we could find in which the question before us was involved, and cited numerous cases holding that a building permit has none of the elements of a contract and may be changed or revoked any time before the party to whom it was issued has acquired a vested right thereunder.
Counsel have referred ns to no authority taking a contrary .view. There are numerous cases holding that a permit may be revoked where such an ordinance, as No. 1257, has been enacted subsequent to its issuance, provided the party to whom it is issued has incurred no liability or has not begun the construction of the improvement.
In the instant cause the building inspector not *414 only recalled or revoked the permit on the day that it was issned in anticipation of the passage of ordinance No. 1257, hut he repeated the demand for its return after ordinance No. 1257 was passed. There is not a particle of evidence in the record that complainant entered into any contract, incurred any liability, or began the work of removing the dwelling at any time subsequent to the issuance of the permit. The bill avers that after receiving the permit complainant began wrecking the dwelling located on the property, but such recital is not evidence; and if any substantial change in the property had been effected, we must assume that complainant would have established that fact by testimony.
We did state in our original opinion that this was a residential area in which there are no industrial enterprises. While this is alleged in the answer, it is not sustained by any evidence. This is an immaterial matter since the right of the city to change the classification of this block is not involved, except in so far as it affects complainant as a result of the permit issued to it.
The petition to rehear is without merit and will, therefore, be denied.