Hill v. Borough of Belmar
| Decision Date | 26 February 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 201.,201. |
| Citation | 127 A. 789 |
| Parties | HILL et al. v. BOROUGH OF BELMAR. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Certiorari by Cornelia C. Hill and others to review an ordinance of the Borough of Belmar. Ordinance set aside.
Argued October term, 1924, before KALISCH, BLACK, and CAMPBELL, JJ.
Harry R. Cooper, of Belmar, for prosecutors.
Joseph Silverstein, of Asbury Park, for respondent.
The writ of certiorari brings before us for review an ordinance entitled "An ordinance providing for the construction of a swimming pool in the Borough of Belmar, and appropriating the money necessary for the work."
Prosecutors have filed nine specific and one general reason why the ordinance should be set aside. These are argued under six points or grounds. The first, second, and fourth may be considered together. They are:
(1) The borough of Belmar has no right to spend public moneys for improving property to which it has no title.
(2) Such title as the borough of Belmar has to the premises in question is held as trustee for the public; the trust being that the property shall remain forever free, open, and unincumbered of any buildings whatsoever.
(4) The borough is estopped from improving the property as contemplated.
The ordinance, by both its preamble and first section, fixes the location of the proposed swimming pool; the preamble being as follows:
"Whereas in the judgment of the mayor and council, it is deemed desirable for the purpose of furnishing appropriate recreation and entertainment for the property owners and visitors in the borough of Belmar to construct a swimming pool on the west side of Ocean avenue between Fifth and Sixth avenues in the borough of Belmar."
Section 1 is as follows:
In 1883 a new map was made and filed showing the property in question, at the head of Silver Lake, laid out in a square. Practically all the conveyances in Belmar were made with reference to one or the other of these maps. In making sales of lots it was represented that this "square" would remain open. Subsequent to 1883 the Ocean Beach Association divided this "square" into lots or plots, and conveyed one lot to each of its stockholders. Some of them erected buildings thereon.
In 1905 the borough of Belmar instituted three ejectment suits in the Supreme Court against three of the persons to whom lots in the "square" had been conveyed. Judgment in each suit was entered in favor of the borough upon relicta.
Belmar v. Barnett, 77 N. J. Law, 559, 72 A. 77, in the Court of Errors and Appeals, arose out of an action of ejectment respecting a parcel of land embraced within the premises with which we are now concerned. Therein, in reciting the facts, Mr. Justice Bergen, writing the opinion of the court, said:
"There was evidence that at what appears to have been the first public sale * * * made in 1875 or 1876, the auctioneer, by direction of the president of the association, who was present, announced to the prospective purchasers that the square of land lying between the lake and the ocean would never be sold, but kept and used as a public park, so that the owners of the lots on each side of the lake would always have an unobstructed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State by State Highway Com'r v. Cooper
...title remains in the dedicator in trust for the use expressly or impliedly declared in the dedication.' Hill v. Borough of Belmar, 3 N.J.Misc. 254, 256, 127 A. 789, 791 (Sup.Ct.1925); Pitney, V.C. in Fessler v. Town of Union, supra, 67 N.J.Eq. at page 22, 56 A. at page 275. Earlier, in Trus......
-
State By Com'r of Transportation v. South Hackensack Tp.
...His rightful concern was with the total value of the fee absolute in the lands, including the 'secondary title' (Hill v. Borough of Belmar (3 N.J.Misc. 254, 127 A. 789), Supra) which the borough held and the 'bare legal title' which the successors in interest of Joseph Coyte held (Hill v. B......
-
McVean v. City of Elkins
... ... Arnold ... & Crawford, D. H. Hill Arnold, and E. A. Bowers, all of ... Elkins, for appellants ... E. L ... 484; City of Ft. Worth v. Burnett, 131 Tex. 190, ... 191, 114 S.W.2d 220; Hill v. Borough of Belmar, 127 ... A. 789, 3 N.J. Misc. 254; Carstens v. City of Wood ... River, 332 Ill. 400, ... ...
-
Baird v. Bd. of Recreation Com'rs of Vill. of S. Orange
...of the town where the land is situated, to authorize a lease of the property for another purpose. Hill y. Borough of Belmar, 127 A. 789, 790, 3 N. J. Misc. R. 254, at page 256: "The result of these suits and the testimony before us show conclusively that there was a dedication of the tract ......
-
PROPERTY LAW'S SEARCH FOR A PUBLIC.
...by dedication, the local government cannot license structures on land beneath bluff that obstruct the view); Hill v. Borough of Belmar, 127 A. 789 (N.J. (118.) Lander, 279 A.2d at 639. (119.) In this manner a dedication differs from other conveyances (grants and typical gifts): the law norm......