Indep. Pa. Oil Co. v. Mayor & Common Council of City of Gloucester
Decision Date | 30 September 1926 |
Docket Number | No. 271.,271. |
Citation | 134 A. 554 |
Parties | INDEPENDENT PENNSYLVANIA OIL CO. v. MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF CITY OF GLOUCESTER et al. |
Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Certiorari by the Independent Pennsylvania Oil Company against the Mayor and Common Council of the City of Gloucester to review a city ordinance. Writ dismissed.
Argued before PARKER, BLACK, and CAMPBELL, JJ.
Walter S. Keown, of Camden, for prosecutor.
Charles W. Letzgus, of Camden, for defendants.
This writ of certiorari brings up an ordinance of the city of Gloucester, adopted December 14, 1923, and which the prosecutor maintains is invalid and should be set aside. The delay of two years and more in attacking it is not explained, although it does appear that there has been some chancery litigation between the prosecutor and the city.
The ordinance in question seems to be based on the powers conferred by the "Home Rule Act" (P. L 1917, P. 319 et seq.) in article 14, § 1, paragraph (p) at page 354, "to regulate the use, storage, sale and disposal of inflammable and combustible materials, and to provide for the protection of life and property from fire, explosions and other dangers." It is claimed that in the ordinance the city has gone beyond the limits of the power conferred, and a consideration of this question requires the incorporation at this point of the title and first section of the ordinance; the remainder relating to enforcement by prosecution, penalty, etc.:
Before proceeding to the particulars of the case, it is proper to note the settled rule touching attack by certiorari on a municipal ordinance as an entirety. To the broad claim here made that it is not regulatory but prohibitory, and therefore beyond the power conferred by statute, we cannot agree. If it provided that no gasoline, etc., should at any time or under any circumstances be stored in the city limits, that would no doubt be prohibitory, but this ordinance is far from saying that. We consider it regulatory, though of course very strict in regulation, and that brings up the question, common in municipal cases, whether the regulation is so unreasonable as to invalidate the entire ordinance.
In...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Miami Beach v. Texas Co.
... ... [194 So. 370] ... City Council of Miami Beach adopted a Zoning Ordinance ... dividing the ... 41; ... Independent Pennsylvania Oil Co. v. Mayor of City of ... Gloucester, 102 N.J.L. 502, 134 A. 554, ... It is ... important to distinguish between the common-law right of ... courts to review generally the question ... ...
-
Con Realty Co. v. Ellenstein
...are not justiciable questions. Reimer v. Borough of Allendale, 123 N.J.L. 563, 10 A.2d 160: Independent Pennsylvania Oil Co. v. Mayor, etc., Gloucester, 102 N.J.L. 502, 134 A. 554; McGonnell v. Board of Com'rs of Orange, 98 N.J.L. 642, 121 A. 135; North Jersey Street Ry. Co. v. Jersey City,......
-
Reingold v. Harper
...branch of the police power. Schait v. Senior, 97 N.J.L. 390, 117 A. 517 (Sup.Ct.1922); Independent Pennsylvania Oil Co. v. Mayor and Council of Gloucester, 102 N.J.L. 502, 134 A. 554 (Sup.Ct.1926); Morgan v. Collingswood, 104 N.J.L. 13, 139 A. 718 (S.Ct.1927). The protection of the public a......
-
Isola v. Borough of Belmar
...City, 75 N.J.L. 349, 354, 67 A. 1072 (Sup.Ct.1907), where the earlier cases are collected; Independent, etc., Oil Co. v. Mayor, etc., of Gloucester, 102 N.J.L. 502, 504, 134 A. 554 (Sup.Ct.1926); 5 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations (3d ed. 1949), § 18.05, p. The second claim is that the gov......