Hulett v. Borough of Sea Girt

• Citation: 154 A. 741
• Decision Date: 18 May 1931
• Docket Number: No. 55.,55.
• Parties: HULETT et al. v. BOROUGH OF SEA GIRT.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

154 A. 741

HULETT et al.

v. BOROUGH OF SEA GIRT.

No. 55.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

May 18, 1931.

Appeal from Court of Chancery.

Suit by Albert G. Hulett and others against the Borough of Sea Girt. From decree dismissing bill (106 N. J. Eq. 118, 150 A. 202), complainants appeal.

Affirmed.

Quinn, Parsons & Doremus, of Red Bank, for appellants.

James D. Carton, of Asbury Park, for respondent.

GUMMERE, C. J.

The present appellants, who were the complainants below, are owners of tracts of land located in the borough of Sea Girt, abutting on the westerly side of Ocean avenue, a public highway, which runs alongside of and parallel to the ocean. This highway is approximately 100 feet in width. The borough, in the year 1929, passed an ordinance authorizing the construction of a 16-foot boardwalk on the easterly side of the avenue and some 8 or 10 feet above the level of that side thereof, with ramp approaches to the same at each intersecting street, and with steps from its easterly side down to the strand at various points along its entire length. The present suit was instituted to restrain the borough from erecting this boardwalk, upon the ground that the construction thereof, with its appurtenances, would illegally interfere with the complainants' right of free passage over Ocean avenue from their respective properties to the water line of the ocean; and, further, that it would illegally obstruct their view toward the east. The hearing in the Court of Chancery (106 N. J. Eq. 118, 150 A. 202) resulted in a dismissal of the bill of complaint, that court reaching the conclusion that there were no private rights of the complainants as property owners which would be violated by the construction of the board-"walk. The present appeal is based upon the contention that the determination of the Vice Chancellor, that no private rights vested in them would be violated by the construction of the boardwalk, was contrary to law.

In our opinion, the bill of complaint was properly dismissed. The fact that the erection of this elevated sidewalk will interfere to some extent with the free passage of the complainants from their respective homes to the water edge, and the further fact that it will also interfere to some extent with their view toward the east, affords no ground for the relief sought. It is not denied that the proposed construction will be for the benefit of the public at large, affording people a much easier means of walking along the...