Atl. City v. Abbott
| Citation | 73 N.J.L. 281,62 A. 999 |
| Parties | ATLANTIC CITY v. ABBOTT. |
| Decision Date | 26 February 1906 |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Certiorari by the state, on the prosecution of William M. Abbott, to review a conviction for the violation of an ordinance of Atlantic City. Affirmed.
Argued November term, 1905, before DIXON, GARRISON, and SWAYZE, JJ.
Harry Wootton, for Atlantic City. Bourgeois & Sooy, for the prosecutor.
The prosecutor was convicted of the violation of an ordinance of Atlantic City which prohibited any one except the duly authorized contractor of Atlantic City from using the streets for the purpose of collecting or disposition of offal, garbage, or refuse matter that might become dangerous to the public health. The ordinance contained regulations as to the time of removal of garbage, and its conveyance to the disposal plant of the contractor, or such other place within the city limits as might be designated by the sanitary committee. It prescribed the character of the conveyance to be used, and provided that no garbage should be spilled or left on the ground, and that the conveyances should not be filled above a certain level, and should be kept covered, cleansed, and disinfected so that they might not become dangerous to the public health. The prosecutor was not the duly authorized contractor of the city, and the evidence justified his conviction of a violation of the ordinance.
The city is authorized by section 14 of the act of 1002 (P. L. 1002, p. 284) to provide for the collection and disposition of offal, garbage, wastes, and all refuse matter which may become dangerous to the public health. The ordinance in question is clearly an attempt to exercise this power, and the question discussed at the argument and in the briefs is whether it is a reasonable exercise of power in view of the provisions of our state and federal Constitutions. It is said to be unreasonable because it limits the right of removal to the duly authorized contractor, and the place of disposition to the city limits, and to be in violation of the Constitution because it deprives the owner of the garbage of his property without compensation.
The disposition of garbage is a matter of prime importance to the public health, and justifies careful inspection and regulation on the part of the public authorities, in order to secure its prompt removal and disposition at seasonable hours, and under such conditions that the danger of scattering offensive matter in the streets may be reduced to a minimum. These objects can be more readily secured if the matter is under the exclusive control of the city. The time and frequency of collection, the method of conveyance, and the method and place of final disposition of the refuse, are all important, and proper control can only be secured by close and careful inspection, which becomes more and more difficult as the number of places and persons to be watched increases. It is not sufficient that the method of collecting and carting should be harmless, and involve no menace to health by the use of the streets. It is necessary, also, that the refuse should be finally disposed of in such a way that the public authorities may be assured that it will be innocuous. To accomplish that purpose, they may adopt any reasonable plan of disposition, provided they act in good faith for the protection of the public health, and not in an arbitrary manner. We see no reason in the present case to doubt that the ordinance was passed in good faith, and,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Armour & Company, a Corporation
... ... City, Omaha, and other large cities, doing a large ... business in the various lines incident to the ... San Francisco, ... 216 U.S. 358, 54 L.Ed. 515, 30 S.Ct. 301; Atlantic City ... v. Abbott, 73 N.J.L. 281, 62 A. 999. The rights of the ... courts are thus set forth by the supreme court ... ...
-
Band's Refuse Removal, Inc. v. Borough of Fair Lawn
...held against these contentions. In support of the validity of the ordinance defendants Capasso rely mainly on Atlantic City v. Abbott, 73 N.J.L. 281, 62 A. 999 (Sup.Ct.1906), and Marangi Bros. v. Bd. of Com're of Ridgewood, 33 N.J.Super. 294, 110 A.2d 131 (App.Div.1954). Plaintiff and the b......
-
Board of Health of Weehawken Tp., Hudson County v. New York Cent. R. Co.
...the public health thereby conferred and recognized is not curtailed by the specific enumeration of R.S. 26:3--31, N.J.S.A. Atlantic City v. Abbott, 73 N.J.L. 281, 62 A. 999 (Sup.Ct.1906); Schwarz Bros. Co. v. Board of Health, 83 N.J.L. 81, 83 A. 762 (Sup.Ct.1912), affirmed on this point 84 ......
-
Greggio v. City of Orange
...294, 110 A.2d 131 (App.Div.1954); Township of Dover v. Witt, 7 N.J.Super. 259, 72 A.2d 884 (App.Div.1950); Atlantic City v. Abbott, 73 N.J.L. 281, 62 A. 999 (Sup.Ct.1906). It is fundamental, however, that when the Legislature delegates a portion of its legislative power to a municipal body ......