Haynes v. City of Cape May

• Decision Date: 27 February 1888
• Citation: 13 A. 231,50 N.J.L. 55
• Parties: HAYNES v. CITY OF CAPE MAY.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

13 A. 231

50 N.J.L. 55

HAYNES

v. CITY OF CAPE MAY.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

February 27, 1888.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

On certiorari to court of common pleas, Cape May county; DIVERTY, GAUDY, and EDMUNDS, Judges.

Argued before DEPUE, VAN SYCKEL, and MAGIE, JJ.

H. W. Edmunds, for plaintiff in certiorari. Learning & Black, for defendant.

DEPUE, J. By the first section of the ordinance concerning licenses, adopted by the city council of Cape May, July 15, 1882, it was provided, among other things, that no person or persons should keep or use for hire any hack, carriage, or vehicle used for the transportation of passengers, baggage, merchandise, goods, or articles of any kind without having first obtained a license there for. The license fee prescribed for vehicles of this description was five dollars if drawn by one horse, and ten dollars if drawn by two horses. By the eleventh section, a penalty of $100 was fixed for violations of the ordinance. Suit was brought by the city against Haynes to recover the penalty named in section 11 of the ordinance for the violation of the provisions of section 1, in that he kept or used for hire certain hacks, during the summer of 1885, without first having procured a license there for, and judgment rendered in favor of the city for $100,—the penalty named in section 11,—together with costs of suit. The only reason assigned for a reversal is that the part of the ordinance which prescribes a penalty of $100 is unauthorized and void.

The charter of the city empowers the city council to make and establish ordinances for certain purposes particularly enumerated; among which are mentioned ordinances to license and regulate hack, cab, and omnibus owners and drivers, and carriages and vehicles used for the transportation of passengers, merchandise, etc., and to prohibit unlicensed persons from acting in such capacities. P. L. 1875, p. 206, § 19, par. 15. Section 21 enacts that in all cases where, by the charter, the city council has authority to pass ordinances on any subject, it may prescribe a penalty or penalties for the violation thereof, either by imprisonment not exceeding 30 days, or by fine not exceeding $100. The subject-matter of this ordinance is embraced within the powers expressly granted to the city council by section 19 of the charter, and the penalty prescribed is within the limit fixed by section 21: The ordinance in all respects conforms to the charter of the city.

There are circumstances under which the court will inquire into the reasonableness of ordinances passed by a municipal body under legislative powers granted to it. Those circumstances exist when the powers granted by the legislature are expressed in terms general and indefinite. But where the legislature has defined the delegated powers, and prescribed with precision the penalties that may be imposed, an ordinance within the powers granted, prescribing a penalty within the designated limit, cannot be set aside as unreasonable. It is insisted by the prosecutor that the power of the city council to pass ordinances on this subject, granted by the city charter, has been superseded by subsequent legislation, and that therewith the provision of the city charter allowing penalties not exceeding $100 for the violation of such ordinances was also superseded. The legislation...