Prinz v. Borough of Paramus, 254.
| Decision Date | 08 April 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 254.,254. |
| Citation | 120 N.J.L. 72,198 A. 284 |
| Parties | PRINZ v. BOROUGH OF PARAMUS, BERGEN COUNTY. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The authority permitting a municipality to pass an ordinance for the regulating and licensing of dog kennels within its territorial limits is amply provided for in the New Jersey Municipalities Act, P.L. 1917, p. 319, and as amended by P.L.1918, p. 958, as amended, R.S.1937, 40:48-2, Comp. St.Supp.1924, § *136—1403; R.S.1937, 40:52-1(g), Comp.St.Supp.1930, § *136—1501(d); and by virtue of the police power so granted, a municipality may pass any reasonable regulation of such business, the unrestrained pursuit of which might affect injuriously the public health or safety.
2. An ordinance of a municipality requiring dog kennels to be at least 100 feet from adjacent property, and from the public highway, is not unreasonable when necessary to minimize the offensive character of the kennel business as disclosed by the evidence.
3. The mere fact that the plot of ground selected by the applicant for a license for dog kennels was not large enough to comply with the provision of the municipal ordinance does not render the ordinance unreasonable.
4. The mere fact that before the passage of the ordinance in question the premises desired to be used for kennels had theretofore been used for such purpose does not render the ordinance unreasonable.
5. The mere fact that other parts of the ordinance may be invalid furnishes no reason for setting aside the ordinance in toto, where such parts, if invalid, are clearly separable from the provision in question upon which the municipality acted in refusing a license for the kennels.
Certiorari proceeding by Anna Prinz against the Borough of Paramus in the County of Bergen to compel the issuance of a license to keep and maintain a dog kennel, for breeding and sale of dogs, which had been denied because kennel did not comply with regulatory provisions of borough ordinance.
Writ dismissed.
Argued October term, 1937, before BROGAN, C. J, and TRENCHARD and PARKER, JJ.
Insley, Decker & Cross, of Jersey City (Hamilton Cross and William E. Decker, both of Jersey City, of counsel), for prosecutrix. Charles Schmidt, of Hackensack (Morris B. Kantoff, of Newark, of counsel), for respondent.
The prosecutrix seems to have applied to the Mayor and Borough Council of the Borough of Paramus for the renewal of a license to keep and maintain a dog kennel for the breeding and sale of dogs, on certain premises leased by her in the borough, although her application is not reproduced before us nor are we otherwise informed as to its precise terms and contents.
The application was denied because the premises in and on which the proposed kennel was to be conducted did not comply with the regulatory provisions of section 10 of the ordinance of the borough passed May 13, 1936, providing for the regulating and licensing of dog kennels, which declared, among other things, that: "No...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gilman v. City of Newark
...850, 90 L.Ed. 1096 (1946); Paquette v. City of Fall River, 338 Mass. 368, 155 N.E.2d 775 (Sup.Jud.Ct.1959); cf. Prinz v. Paramus, 120 N.J.L. 72, 198 A. 284 (Sup.Ct.1938), affirmed 121 N.J.L. 585, 3 A.2d 584 (E. & A. 1939); see also annotation in 109 A.L.R. 1117. It follows that the provisio......
-
Clary v. Borough of Eatontown, A--210
...N.J.Super. at pages 476, 477, 119 A.2d 461); Cf. State v. Mundet Cork Corp., 8 N.J. 359, 369, 86 A.2d 1 (1952); Prinz v. Paramus, 120 N.J.L. 72, 74, 198 A. 284 (Sup.Ct.1938), affirmed 121 N.J.L. 585, 3 A.2d 584 (E. & A.1939). The reliance by the court in the Rockaway Estates case, supra, on......
-
State v. Mundet Cork Corp.
...for example the requirement necessary to minimize the offensive character of the conduct to be regulated. Prinz v. Paramus, 120 N.J.L. 72, 74, 198 A. 284 (Sup.Ct.1938), affirmed per curiam 121 N.J.L. 585, 3 A.2d 584 (E. & A. 1939). The testimony, which has been adverted to above, showed tha......
-
Howell Tp. v. Sagorodny
...set back found in section 3, see Delawanna Iron & Metal Co. v. Albrecht, 9 N.J. 424, 88 A.2d 616 (1952); cf. Prinz v. Borough of Paramus, 120 N.J.L. 72, 198 A. 284 (Sup.Ct.1938), affirmed 121 N.J.L. 585, 3 A.2d 584 (E. & A.1939). As to the requirement of a fence found in section 3, see Vass......