Johnson v. Borough of Belmar
| Decision Date | 31 August 1899 |
| Citation | 44 A. 166,58 N.J.E. 354 |
| Parties | JOHNSON v. BOROUGH OF BELMAR. |
| Court | New Jersey Court of Chancery |
Application for preliminary injunction by Robert S. Johnson against the borough of Belmar. Granted.
S. A. Patterson, for complainant.
Halsted H. Wainwright for defendant.
The board of health of the borough, under the act of February 22, 1888, c. 56 (2 Gen. St. p. 1642), have the right to regulate the plumbing of buildings, and to require plans to be submitted for their inspection and approval. Where a plan has been submitted by an owner to the board, and the plan so submitted has been approved, either as submitted or with alterations, the owner, if he proceeds with the work, must conform to the plans as approved. If the owner desire to question either the failure to approve his plans or the conditions as unreasonable, he must do so by appeal to the courts before proceeding with the work. Otherwise, he is bound in justice, as well as by the ordinance of the board of health, to follow the plans as approved. Morford v. Board (Sup. Ct; 1898) 61 N. J. Law, 386, 390, 39 Atl. 706, citing Health Department v. Lalor, 38 Hun, 542. The answer does not set up that the owner's plans were not approved, or that he is not following the plans which were approved originally, but claims the right to cut off the water supply solely because of the failure of the owner to comply with the ordinances of the board of health in relation to open plumbing. For violation of the ordinances of the board of health, the owner is by the statute made subject to penalties on prosecution of the board of health; but the board of health have no authority, under the statute, either to control directly the turning on the water for permanent use, or to cut off the water when once so turned on, by reason of violation of their ordinances. Such control would subject the owner to an additional penalty.
The control of the public water supply, and the sole right to turn on water and to cut it off, is in the borough council; and in the absence of any regulation by the borough council itself that water shall not be turned on until a certificate from the board of health has been obtained that the plumbing conforms to their ordinances or plans, or that it shall be cut off after it has been turned on by reason of failure to comply with the ordinances of the board of health, the borough council has no right to cut off the water supply from an owner by reason of this failure. Its right...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City Sanitation Company v. City of Casper
... ... (Richards v ... Meissner, 158 F. 109; 22 Cyc. 756; Borough of Easton ... v. Ry. Co., 2 Pa. Co. 639; Doughty v. R. R ... Co., 7 N.J. Eq. 629, 51 Am. Dec ... law involved have been fully argued, then the court clearly ... has the right to do so. (Johnson v. Belmar, 58 N.J ... Eq. 354, 44 A. 166. See also Crawford v. Gilchrist, ... 64 Fla. 41, 59 So ... ...
-
City Council of City of Elizabeth v. Naturile
...plan inspection. The board has the right to regulate the standards for materials used and manner of installation. Johnson v. Belmar, 58 N.J.Eq. 354, 355, 44 A. 166 (1899); Elizabeth Bd. of Health v. Dickstein, 67 A. 89, 90 Plaintiff city has a department of health, welfare and housing, as w......
-
Reid Development Corp. v. Parsippany-Troy Hills Tp., PARSIPPANY-TROY
...however serviceable to the common good. Such benefits are to be had through the channels prescribed by the law. Johnston v Belmar, 58 N.J.Eq. 354, 44 A. 166 (Ch. 1899); Magnolia Development Co. Inc. v. Borough of Magnolia, cited supra. There is no statutory authority for this condition. Pla......
-
Munson Dye Works v. Mayor and Aldermen of Jersey City
...conditions which are inequitable. McDowell v. Avon-by-the-Sea Land & Imp. Company, 71 N. J. Eq. 109, 63 A. 13; Johnson v. Borough of Belmar, 58 N. J. Eq. 354, 44 A. 166; Dayton v. Quigley, 29 N. J. Eq. 77; Long Branch Commission v. Tintern Manor Water Company, 70 N. J. Eq. 71, 62 A. It appe......