Lybrand, Simons Rich, of Aiken, and ThomasH. Pope, of Newberry, for Appellant, cite: As to the CityCouncil of Aiken having no right to revoke the buildingpermit granted to Appellant: 218 S.C. 435, 63 S.E.2d 153; 227 Iowa 324, 288 N.W. 145; Yokley, Zoning Law and Practice, (2nd Ed.) Vol. 1, Sec. 122, p. 296; 196 N YS. 672; 271 N.Y. 94, 2 N.E.2d 273; 214 N.Y.S.2d 807; 221 N.Y.S.2d 67; 221 N.Y.S. 564; (Mass.) 99 N.E.2d 66; 142 Conn. 415, 115 A.2d 328; (Tex.) 239 S.W.2d 636; 237 S.C. 237, 116 S.E.2d 843; 234 S.C. 365, 108 S.E.2d 571; 234 S.C. 198, 107 S.E.2d 350; 233 S.C. 56, 74 S.E.2d 220; 147 S.C. 452, 145 S.E. 297; 14 S.C. 417; 54 S.C. 192, 32 S.E. 300; 10 S.C.L.Q. 495; 200 S.C. 266, 20 S.E.2d 699; 209 S.C. 394, 40 S.E.2d 499; Yokley, Zoning Law and Practice, Sec. 100; 209 S.C. 394, 40 S.E.2d 499; 232 S.C. 405, 102 S.E.2d 364; 172 S.C. 16, 172 S.E. 689; 190 S.C. 92. 2 S.E.2d 392; 226 S.C. 585, 86 S.E.2d 466; 241 S.C. 77, 127 S.E.2d 210. As to the Circuit Courthaving no power or right to modify or revoke the buildingpermit, under the circumstances in this case: 200 S.C. 266, 20 S.E.2d 699; 209 S.C. 394, 40 S.E.2d 499; 232 S.C. 405, 102 S.E.2d 364; 237 S.C. 237, 116 S.E.2d 843; 234 S.C. 365, 108 S.E.2d 571; 234 S.C. 198, 107 S.E.2d 350; 233 S.C. 56, 74 S.E.2d 220; 196 N.Y.S. 672; 271 N.Y. 94, 2 N.E.2d 273; 214 N.Y.S.2d 807; 221 N.Y.S.2d 67; 221 N YS. 564; (Mass.
The department pemitted this work to go forward and then brought on these prosecutions for completion of the work without approval. It is claimed and not disputed that in spite of the zoning moratorium, the department is empowered and/or has empowered itself to grant exceptions thereto and has in fact granted such exception to at least one midtown health and racquet club. The leading case concerning enforcement of building regulations and the difficulties of reconciling traditional concepts of due process with an apparent grant of selective interpretation and enforcement powers to an executive-branch commissioner is People v Namro Holding Corp. ( 10 A.D.2d 702, affd 8 N.Y.2d 1131) and its companion, Namro Holding Corp. v City of New York ( 31 Misc.2d 480, revd 17 A.D.2d 431, affd 14 N.Y.2d 693). A study of both cases on each level of adjudication is appropriate. Even more interesting are the dissenting opinions and the unsettling of the principles established in the first case by the ultimate result in the second one.