Bill Posting Stgn Co. v. Atl. City
| Decision Date | 13 June 1904 |
| Citation | 71 N.J.L. 72,58 A. 342 |
| Parties | BILL POSTING STGN CO. v. ATLANTIC CITY. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Certiorari by the state, on the prosecution of the Bill Posting Sign Company, against Atlantic City, to review an ordinance. Ordinance held invalid.
Argued February term, 1904. before VAN SYCKEL and FORT, JJ.
Albert De Unger and Thompson & Cole, for prosecutors.
Harry Wootton, for defendant.
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: The prosecutor was notified to remove its sign, and that the city would do so if it did not. Acts 1902, 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. Acts 1003, p 513, § 1. provides that it shall be lawful for the common council of any city by ordinance to regulate the size, height, location, position, and material of all signs, bill hoards, 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 he 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. 400, 83 N. Y. Supp. 460. 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, where the public safety was in nowise involved. In Matter of Application of Jacobs, 98 N. Y. 98, 50...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Proceeding to Restrict use of Property Along Gladstone Boulevard
... ... AND TO CONDEMN CERTAIN RIGHTS THEREIN; KANSAS CITY, Appellant, v. FRED LIEBI et al Supreme Court of ... 466; ... St. Louis v. Dreisoerner, 243 Mo. 217; Bill ... Posting Co. v. Atlantic City, 71 N. J. L. 72; City ... ...
-
Kansas City Gunning Advertising Co. v. Kansas City
... ... Green, 83 ... N.Y.S. 460; Bosback v. Sands, 95 Md. 400; Bill ... Posting Co. v. Atlantic City, 58 A. 342; Crawford v ... Topeka, ... ...
-
St. Louis Gunning Advertising Co. v. City of St. Louis
...for the purpose of maintaining therein a zoological garden? No question of public danger was involved. In the case of Bill Posting Co. v. Atlantic City, supra, the Court of New Jersey simply held that an ordinance which prohibited the erection of signs upon private property, without regard ......
-
Hatfield v. Meers, 24326
...Mayor, etc., 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. ......