Giant Tiger Corp. v. Bd. of Com'rs of City of Trenton
| Decision Date | 27 September 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 248.,248. |
| Citation | 168 A. 309 |
| Parties | GIANT TIGER CORPORATION et al. v. BOARD OF COM'RS OF CITY OF TRENTON. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Certiorari by the Giant Tiger Corporation and another against the Board of Commissioners of the City of Trenton.
Writ dismissed.
Argued May term, 1933, before CASE, BODINE, and DONGES, JJ.
Alex Budson and Henry M. Hartmann, both of Trenton, for prosecutors.
Charles E. Bird, of Trenton, for defendant.
The writ brings up for review an ordinance of the city of Trenton providing for a license fee for certain food markets. The pertinent provisions of the ordinance, so far as this case is concerned, are as follows:
The ordinance in question was adopted pursuant to legislative grant. P. L. 1917, pp. 319, 358, art. 15, § 1, as amended P. L. 1918, p. 958 (Comp. St. Supp. § *136—1501). The statute (P. L 1917, p. 359 [Comp. St. Supp. § *136—1502]) authorized the municipality to impose a license fee for revenue. The Legislature has such power, and the municipality may act thereunder. Morgan v. Orange, 50 N. J. Law, 389, 391, 13 A. 240.
There is always a presumption in favor of the validity of a duly adopted ordinance which includes a presumption in favor of its reasonableness. Wagman v. Trenton, 102 N. J. Law, 492, 134 A. 115. The only real question in this case is whether the third section of the ordinance exempting certain markets has invalidated the whole.
We think not. The distinction is between food markets where other articles are sold and food markets selling food, flowers, seeds, and plants exclusively. The only open air market in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Salomon v. Jersey City
...541 (1917); Lynch v. City of Long Branch, 111 N.J.L. 148, 150, 167 A. 664 (Sup.Ct.1933); Giant Tiger Corp. v. Board of Comm'rs of City of Trenton, 168 A. 309, 11 N.J.Misc. 797, 798 (Sup.Ct.1933), affirmed 113 N.J.L. 34, 172 A. 565 (E. & A. 1934). However, in none of the cases was the issue ......
-
Giant Tiger Corp. of Camden v. Bd. of Com'rs of City of Camden
...an ordinance of the City of Trenton in pari materia, which was considered by this court in Giant Tiger Corporation et al. v. Board of Commissioners of Trenton, 168 A. 309, 11 N.J. Misc. 797, affirmed on opinion below, 113 N.J.L. 34, 172 A. 565. A somewhat similar case is Hoffman v. Borough ......
-
Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., Inc. v. Bd. of Com'rs of City of Camden
...a business man because he has selected an old and fair method of selling his goods. In the case of Giant Tiger Corp. v. Board of Com'rs of City of Trenton, 168 A. 309, 11 N.J.Misc. 797, affirmed in 113 N.J.L. 34, 172 A. 565, an ordinance providing a license fee for each concession in a buil......
-
Am. Grocery Co. v. Bd. of Comm'rs of City of New Brunswick
...where general merchandise is sold is not unreasonable, arbitrary or discriminatory." Compare Giant Tiger Corp. v. Board of Commissioners of Trenton, 168 A. 309, 11 N. J. Misc. 797, 799, affirmed 113 N. J. L. 34, 172 A. 565, which involved four concessions and a fee of $100 for each concessi......