Borough of Haddon Heights v. Hunt

• Decision Date: 25 April 1917
• Citation: 101 A. 427,90 N.J.Law 35
• Parties: BOROUGH OF HADDON HEIGHTS v. HUNT.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

101 A. 427

90 N.J.Law 35

BOROUGH OF HADDON HEIGHTS

v. HUNT.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

April 25, 1917.

Samuel P. Hunt was convicted, and brings certiorari. Conviction set aside, with costs.

The following is the ordinance in question: Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person to hawk or peddle or expose for sale house to bouse in the borough of Haddon Heights any goods, wares or merchandise of any description, excepting products of his or her own raising, or articles of his or her own manufacture, or to drive, push or pull any peddler's cart or wagon within said borough for that purpose with out a license for that purpose first had and obtained. All persons who shall go from house to house and sell on orders or by sample any goods, wares or merchandise to be afterwards delivered, shall be considered as hawkers and peddlers within the meaning of this ordinance, and shall be subject to the conditions and penalties herein provided: Provided, however, that no person or persons having a regular place of business or residence within the limits of the said borough of Haddon Heights, and paying taxes thereon, shall be subject to any of the said conditions or penalties, unless he, she or they are selling the goods of persons who are not residents and taxpayers of said borough.

Argued before GARRISON, J., sitting alone pursuant to the statute.

Cyrus D. Marter, of Camden, for prosecutor. Jess & Rogers, of Camden, for defendant.

GARRISON, J. The ordinance is infirm, whether the occupation tax be a police or a revenue measure, for the reason that there is no rational connection between the occupation that is taxed and the conditions that exempt from such tax.

Residence in the borough is admittedly not enough, and having a regular place of business is on the same footing, in the absence of a requirement that the business conduct at such place shall bear some relation to the wares so peddled.

To exempt a peddler of produce because he had a music store or a photograph gallery would be arbitrary in the extreme. Whether or not such suggested requirement would meet this defect is not up for decision.

The payment of real estate taxes on a residence or place of business affords no basis for exemption from an occupation tax; the two imposts are entirely unrelated. A nonresident might own and pay taxes on all the real estate in the borough and still be required to pay this occupation tax.

The grounds of exemption being thus arbitrary and illusory, the...