Oliver v. Inhabitants of City of Burlington

Decision Date20 June 1907
PartiesOLIVER et al. v. INHABITANTS OF CITY OF BURLINGTON et al.
CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Certiorari by Edmund D. Oliver and another against the inhabitants of the city of Burlington and Henry L. Brown, to review a resolution of the common council of Burlington, Resolution set aside.

Argued February term, 1907, before GARRISON, SWAYZE, and TRENCHARD, JJ.

Norman Grey, for prosecutors. Ernest Watts and Edwin Robert Walker, for defendants.

TRENCHARD, J. The writ of certiorari in this case brings up for review the lease of a wharf by the city of Burlington to the defendant Brown. On June 5, 1900, the common council of the city passed a resolution providing for the lease, which was executed June 29, 1906. The lease granted to Brown "all that certain wharf and wharf buildings thereon erected, situate at the foot or northerly end of High street, and facing upon the Delaware river, in the city of Burlington aforesaid, and known as the 'Town Wharf,' with the appurtenances." The lease was for five years from June 5, 1900, at $500 per year.

The legality of the lease is challenged on the ground that the city was without power to make the lease. High street is the oldest street in the town, and was laid out in 1677. It runs at right angles to the Delaware river, and is the principal mercantile street. At its end and between it and the river, and extending the full width of the street, is a public wharf, known as the "Town Wharf." The trolley cars run down to the wharf. The title of the streets in the city of Burlington was in the proprietors, and passed to their grantees (Lewis v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. [N. J. Ch.] 33 Atl. 932), and there has been no conveyance of the fee of High street to the city. The wharf in question has been used as a public wharf by the public and the different classes of boats on the river from the earliest times. It is shown on a map made in 1696. Appropriations for its repair were made by the city from time to time. On March 4, 1851, an "Act to incorporate the city of Burlington" was passed (P L. 1851, p. 149), the fifteenth section (page 153) of which provided that council might pass ordinances regulating wharves and docks and the rates of wharfage, and ordinances for such purposes were passed from time to time. The powers delegated to a municipal corporation by the Legislature, authorizing it to regulate wharves, and to charge and collect wharfage for their use, are public or legislative powers and incapable of delegation or of surrender by the municipality. A municipality cannot therefore surrender the powers by leasing the exclusive use and control of its wharves for any period of time, without express statutory authority so to do. 30 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law (2d Ed.) 488, and cases there cited. In this state, the right of the public to have communication between the end of a street and a navigable stream kept open is well established. Hoboken Land...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Application of Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Court of Chancery
    • July 29, 1942
    ...489; Doherty v. Spitznagle, supra; Heifer v. Simon, 53 N.J.L. 550, 22 A. 120; Halsey v. Nowrey, 71 N.J.L. 481, 59 A. 449; Oliver v. Burlington, 75 N.J.L. 227, 67 A. 43. (2) The essential element of due process of law is an opportunity to be heard and a necessary condition of such opportunit......
  • Vill. of Whitefish Bay v. Milwaukee Cnty.
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • February 9, 1937
    ...60 N.W. 270;Maercker v. City of Milwaukee (1912) 151 Wis. 324, 139 N.W. 199, L.R.A. 1915F, 1196, Ann.Cas.1914B, 199;Oliver v. Burlington (1907) 75 N.J.Law, 227, 67 A. 43. [6] In briefs of counsel for defendant the real reason for the enactment of this statute is set out. The reason the law ......
  • Thomas v. Macklen
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • March 2, 1938
  • Thomas v. Macklen
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • March 2, 1938
    ... ... population of not less than three hundred inhabitants, and as ... to which area the non-resident freeholders shall exceed in ... which persons shall be known as the Town or City Council ... From those so appointed, one shall be chosen by the ... 600; ... Foley v. Hoboken, 61 N.J.L. 478, 38 A. 833; Oliver ... v. Burlington, 75 N.J.L. 227, 67 A. 43." ...          Now, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT