58 A. 342 (N.J. 1904), The Bill Posting Sign Co. v. Atlantic City

Citation58 A. 342, 71 N.J.L. 72
Opinion JudgeVAN SYCKEL, J.
Party NameTHE BILL POSTING SIGN COMPANY v. ATLANTIC CITY
AttorneyFor the prosecutors, Albert De Unger and Thompson & Cole. For the defendant, Harry Wootton.
Judge PanelBefore Justices VAN SYCKEL and FORT.
Case DateJune 13, 1904
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

Page 342

58 A. 342 (N.J. 1904)

71 N.J.L. 72

THE BILL POSTING SIGN COMPANY

v.

ATLANTIC CITY

Supreme Court of New Jersey

June 13, 1904

Argued February 17, 1904.

On certiorari.

For the prosecutors, Albert De Unger and Thompson & Cole.

For the defendant, Harry Wootton.

Before Justices VAN SYCKEL and FORT.

OPINION

[71 N.J.L. 73] VAN SYCKEL, J.

The writ in this case certifies into this court an ordinance of Atlantic City, of which the first section reads as follows:

"SECTION 1. Be it ordained by the City Council of Atlantic City, That on and after the passage of this ordinance it shall be unlawful to erect or place any fence, billboard, sign or other structure used for the purpose of displaying advertisements within the limits of Atlantic City; provided, however, that no part of this section shall apply to any signs or advertisements permitted by the subsequent sections of this ordinance."

The prosecutor was notified to remove its sign, and that the city would do so if it did not.

The act of 1902 (Pamph. L., p. 296, § 15) gives the city council power to make ordinances, not contrary to the laws of this state or of the United States, as they may deem necessary for good government and the preservation of public health and prosperity.

The act of 1903 (Pamph. L., p. 513) provides that it shall be lawful for the common council of any city, by ordinance, to regulate the size, height, location, position and material [71 N.J.L. 74] of all signs, billboards and advertisements erected within the city limits, and to provide for the manner of securing and fastening the same, and the removal, change and alteration thereof.

1. While it may be conceded that in the exercise of the police power the right may be granted to municipalities to control the erection of signs where the public safety requires it, a statute which purports to give unlimited power to regulate the erection of signs on private property, would be an attempt to authorize the appropriation of private property to public use without compensation, and therefore inimical to our constitutional provision. People v. Green, 85 App. Div. (N.Y.) 400.

The recognition of a power so wide would bestow upon the lawmaker the right to invest cities with authority to control the size and style of buildings which should be erected upon private property...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 practice notes
  • 90 A. 822 (R.I. 1914), 452, Horton v. Old Colony Bill Posting Co.
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Supreme Court of Rhode Island
    • 26 Junio 1914
    ...Crawford v. Topeka, 51 Kan. 757, 33 P. 476, 20 L.R.A. 692, 37 Am.St.Rep. 323; Bill Posting Sign Co. v. Atlantic City, 71 N. J. Law, 72, 58 A. 342; Passaic v. Paterson B. P. Co., 72 N. J. Law, 285, 62 A. 267, 111 Am.St.Rep. 676, 5 Ann.Cas. 995. In all of these cases it was found that the ord......
  • 107 P. 261 (Colo. 1910), Curran Bill Posting & Distributing Co. v. City of Denver
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • 7 Febrero 1910
    ...Boston Ad. Co., 188 Mass. 348, 74 N.E. 601, 69 L.R.A. 817, 108, Am.St.Rep. 494; Bill Posting Sign Co. v. Atlantic City, 71 N. J. Law, 72, 58 A. 342. In City of Passaic v. Patterson Bill Posting Co., supra, in answer to the argument that because the erection of such signs might be attended w......
  • 402 S.W.2d 35 (Mo.App. 1966), 24326, Hatfield v. Meers
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals of Missouri
    • 4 Abril 1966
    ...City of Paterson, 74 N.J.L. 738, 68 A. 76; State, Ackerman, Pros. v. Town of Bergen, 33 N.J.L. 39; Bill Posting Sign Co. v. Atlantic City, 71 N.J.L. 72, 58 A. 342; Tennent v. City of Seattle, 83 Wash. 108, 145 P. 83; Costakis v. Village of Yorkville, 109 Ohio St. 184, 142 N.E. 30; Village o......
  • 154 S.E. 29 (N.C. 1930), 266, Town of Wake Forest v. Medlin
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • 2 Julio 1930
    ...without compensation." People v. Green, [85 A.D. 400], 83 N.Y.S. 460; Bill Posting Sign Co. v. Atlantic City, 71 N. J. Law, 73, 58 A. 342. The language quoted above from the last-mentioned case was cited with approval by this court in the case of State v. Staples, 157 N.C. 637, 73 S.E.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
26 cases
  • 90 A. 822 (R.I. 1914), 452, Horton v. Old Colony Bill Posting Co.
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Supreme Court of Rhode Island
    • 26 Junio 1914
    ...Crawford v. Topeka, 51 Kan. 757, 33 P. 476, 20 L.R.A. 692, 37 Am.St.Rep. 323; Bill Posting Sign Co. v. Atlantic City, 71 N. J. Law, 72, 58 A. 342; Passaic v. Paterson B. P. Co., 72 N. J. Law, 285, 62 A. 267, 111 Am.St.Rep. 676, 5 Ann.Cas. 995. In all of these cases it was found that the ord......
  • 107 P. 261 (Colo. 1910), Curran Bill Posting & Distributing Co. v. City of Denver
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • 7 Febrero 1910
    ...Boston Ad. Co., 188 Mass. 348, 74 N.E. 601, 69 L.R.A. 817, 108, Am.St.Rep. 494; Bill Posting Sign Co. v. Atlantic City, 71 N. J. Law, 72, 58 A. 342. In City of Passaic v. Patterson Bill Posting Co., supra, in answer to the argument that because the erection of such signs might be attended w......
  • 402 S.W.2d 35 (Mo.App. 1966), 24326, Hatfield v. Meers
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals of Missouri
    • 4 Abril 1966
    ...City of Paterson, 74 N.J.L. 738, 68 A. 76; State, Ackerman, Pros. v. Town of Bergen, 33 N.J.L. 39; Bill Posting Sign Co. v. Atlantic City, 71 N.J.L. 72, 58 A. 342; Tennent v. City of Seattle, 83 Wash. 108, 145 P. 83; Costakis v. Village of Yorkville, 109 Ohio St. 184, 142 N.E. 30; Village o......
  • 154 S.E. 29 (N.C. 1930), 266, Town of Wake Forest v. Medlin
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • 2 Julio 1930
    ...without compensation." People v. Green, [85 A.D. 400], 83 N.Y.S. 460; Bill Posting Sign Co. v. Atlantic City, 71 N. J. Law, 73, 58 A. 342. The language quoted above from the last-mentioned case was cited with approval by this court in the case of State v. Staples, 157 N.C. 637, 73 S.E.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results