Hoffman v. Mayor and Borough Council of Borough of S. River
| Decision Date | 14 August 1935 |
| Citation | 180 A. 394 |
| Parties | HOFFMAN v. MAYOR AND BOROUGH COUNCIL OF BOROUGH OF SOUTH RIVER. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Petition for writ of certiorari by Selig Hoffman against the Mayor and Borough Council of the Borough of South River.
Writ denied.
Heard by CASE, J, sitting alone pursuant to the statute.
David T. Wilentz, of Perth Amboy, for prosecutor.
George L. Burton, of South River, for respondents.
The matter comes before me on petition for a writ of certiorari to review an ordinance of the borough of South River. There are no proofs, but there is a stipulation that the disposition of the application shall be a final disposition as though a writ had issued and that the "matter be disposed of upon the basis of the ordinance." By this, I understand, the alleged invalidity of the ordinance is made to depend solely upon such matters as appear within the enactment itself.
The ordinance applies to any market with four or more leased concessions. It imposes an annual license fee of $200 for each concession except as otherwise provided. With respect to markets conducted solely for the sale of food products, cut flowers, potted plants, plants, shrubs, trees, and seeds, the annual license fee is fixed at $150, except that where the market is conducted solely for the sale of such articles when raised, grown, or produced by the persons operating the concession, the annual license fee is set at $1; and the attack is upon this distinction in favor of the seller who is also the producer.
The ordinance is, by its terms, a revenue producing measure.
Prosecutor contends that the factor which determines what the amount of the fee shall be is the individuality of the seller and that this method of determination is capricious and unreasonable, and therefore unlawful. There is nothing before me to show that the fee of $150, considered absolutely and not by way of comparison, is either unreasonable or prohibitive. In Levin v. Asbury Park, 154 A. 742, 9 N. J. Misc. 515, a very much larger fee was sustained, with the remark that a license fee up to the point of being prohibitive may reasonably be regarded as a revenue producer. The instant case is made to hinge upon a distinction between those who sell only that which they produce and those who sell without that limitation. In the light of our decisions I cannot say that that distinction is unlawful. Let us assume that seller-grown produce had been made fully exempt. The case would then, as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Giant Tiger Corp. of Camden v. Bd. of Com'rs of City of Camden
...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 of South River, 180 A. 394, 13 N.J.Misc. 618. In that also the attack was on the and a writ of certiorari was denied. Although it is not definitely claimed that......
-
Chaiet v. City Of East Orange.
...Brunswick, 124 N.J.L. 293, 11 A.2d 599. There is a presumption that a duly adopted ordinance is reasonable. Hoffman v. Mayor Etc. Borough of South River, 180 A. 394, 13 Misc. 618. The writ of certiorari will be dismissed, with ...
-
Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., Inc. v. Bd. of Com'rs of City of Camden
...goods. An unreasonable distinction between merchants engaged in the same business voids the ordinance. Hoffman v. Mayor and Borough Council of South River, 180 A. 394, 13 N.J.Misc. 618. The classification in question has not the slightest resemblance to classification predicated upon a desi......
-
Am. Grocery Co. v. Bd. of Comm'rs of City of New Brunswick
...N. J. L. 240, 248, 249, 4 A.2d 775, which involved four concessions and a fee of $200 for each concession, and Hoffman v. Mayor, &c. South River, 180 A. 394, 13 N.J.Misc. 618, which also involved four concessions and a fee of $200 for each concession, with certain exceptions not here But as......