Hamilton Lumber & Mfg. Co. v. City of Paterson
| Decision Date | 08 September 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 253.,253. |
| Citation | 1 A.2d 311,121 N.J.L. 95 |
| Parties | HAMILTON LUMBER & MFG. CO. v. CITY OF PATERSON et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Proceeding on writ of certiorari by the Hamilton Lumber & Manufacturing Company against the City of Paterson and others to determine the legality of an ordinance granting permission to maintain and operate a railroad siding longitudinally on a public street.
Writ dismissed.
Argued May term, 1938, before CASE, DONGES, and PORTER, JJ.
Frederic Beggs and Beggs & Grimshaw, all of Paterson, for prosecutor.
Ferdinand A. Delapenha, of Paterson, and Robert Carey, Jr., of Newark, for Wright Aeronautical Corporation.
Salvatore D. Viviano, of Paterson, for City of Paterson and Board of Public Works of the City of Paterson.
Prosecutor challenges the legality of an ordinance passed by the Board of Public Works of the City of Paterson granting permission to the Wright Aeronautical Corporation and the Erie Railroad Company to lay, maintain and operate a railroad siding, for a period of thirty years and under regulation by the city authorities, longitudinally on and along Oregon Avenue, from the lands of the railroad company to the lands of the Wright Aeronautical Corporation. The siding is to be used by or on behalf of the Wright Company to move freight shipments between its plant and the railroad main line without breaking bulk. Oregon Avenue measures thirty feet from curb to curb; it is an unimproved dirt street one block long, located in the heavy industrial zone of the city. Prosecutor owns two tracts of land fronting thereon. It once used one of the tracts for the sale of lumber at retail. That business was terminated by fire in 1930. The other tract was the site of a wholesale mill-work enterprise until 1936 when fire destroyed the building. The grounds now present a ruinous appearance.
We think that the city was without authority to grant permission for the use of the highway, longitudinally, for the laying, maintaining and operating of railroad tracks to be applied to private use. But the street is subjected to little use, and we do not perceive how the prosecutor will be damaged in either manner or degree other than the remaining landowners along the highway.
The rule as generally applied in our cases is that an individual may not, by writ of certiorari, question such a usurpation of authority by a municipal corporation unless he sustains some special injury. Altschul v. Mayor &c. of Jersey City, 151...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gates v. City Council of Bloomfield, 47893
...Door & Lumber Co., 15 Wash. 210, 46 P. 237; Pennsylvania Co. v. Bond, 202 Ill. 95, 66 N.E. 941. See also Hamilton Lbr. & Mfg. Co. v. City of Patterson, 121 N.J.L. 95, 1 A.2d 311, holding invalid a city ordinance which granted a business the right to operate a private railroad siding on a pu......
-
Tube Reducing Corp.. v. Unemployment Comp. Comm'n
...E.g. State, Montgomery, Pros., et al. v. Inhabitants of City of Trenton, Sup.1872, 36 N.J.L. 79; Hamilton Lumber & Manufacturing Co. v. City of Paterson, Sup.1938, 121 N.J.L. 95, 1 A.2d 311. The conclusion below was that such special interest is to be found in the requirement of R.S. 43:21-......
-
Lazarus, In re, A--311
...writ had to show some special interest, beyond that held by the public, that was or would be affected. Hamilton Lumber & Mfg. Co. v. Paterson, 121 N.J.L. 95, 96, 1 A.2d 311 (Sup.Ct.1938); Tube Reducing Corp. v. State, 1 N.J. 177, 180, 62 A.2d 473, 5 A.L.R.2d 855 (1948). We conclude, therefo......
-
Faherty v. Twp. Comm. of Bernards Tp., 263.
...manner, by the enforcement of [the] ordinance." Tallon v. Hoboken, 60 N.J.L. 212, 37 A. 895; and cases cited; Hamilton Lumber & Mfg. Co. v. Paterson, 121 N.J.L. 95, 1 A.2d 311. We deem the point well taken, and that it is dispositive of the case. It is in evidence that the proximity of a ce......