Rosenberg v. Bd. Of Com'rs Of City Of Camden.
| Decision Date | 06 August 1948 |
| Citation | 137 N.J.L. 505,60 A.2d 617 |
| Parties | ROSENBERG et al. v. BOARD OF COM'RS OF CITY OF CAMDEN. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Certiorari proceeding by Abraham Rosenberg and others, trading as New Jersey Bottling Company, against Board of Commissioners of the City of Camden to review the city's action in adopting an amendment to an ordinance, licensing and regulating wholesale bottling establishments in the City of Camden.
Writ allowed.
Before DONGES, J.
Meyer L. Sakin, of Camden, for prosecutors.
John J. Crean, of Camden, for defendant.
Prosecutors seek a writ of certiorari to review the action of the City of Camden in adopting an amendment to an ordinance, adopted March 15, 1928, which amendment was adopted December 11, 1947, effective January 1st, 1948, being ‘An ordinance to license and regulate wholesale bottling establishments, trades or businesses within the City of Camden, New Jersey, and to fix the fee to be paid for such licenses' and to prohibit all persons and places from being so used without a license, etc.
Prosecutors attack the ordinance on three grounds:
1. The ordinance is ultra vires;
2. The ordinance is unreasonable and arbitrary;
3. The ordinance is invalid by reason of vesting in the discretion of an officer the right to approve or disapprove the granting of a license.
The question of the power of a municipality to adopt such ordinances has been fully determined in the cases of Chaiet v. City of East Orange, 136 N.J.L. 375, 56 A.2d 599, and Ring v. Mayor and Council of Borough of North Arlington, 136 N.J.L. 494, 56 A.2d 744, and such right upheld.
The next point is that the vesting of absolute discretion in an official to approve or disapprove the granting of a license renders the ordinance invalid.
The amendment provides, Section 2. ‘No such license shall be issued excepting after approval thereof shall have been given in writing by the Director of Public Safety and upon payment of the applicant of a fee of one hundred ($100.00) therefor.’
In Lipkin v. Duffy, 119 N.J.L. 366, 196 A. 434, 435, it was held, by the Court of Errors and Appeals, that it is ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tillberg v. Kearny Tp.
...Finn v. Municipal Council of City of Clifton, 136 N.J.L. 34, 53 A.2d 790 (E. & A. 1947); Rosenberg v. Board of Com'rs of City of Camden, 137 N.J.L. 505, 60 A.2d 617 (Sup.Ct.1948). Defendants urge that the requirements for approval by the building inspector and the superintendent of the fire......
-
Gross v. Allan, A--517
...Finn v. Municipal Council of City of Clifton, 136 N.J.L. 34, 53 A.2d 790 (E. & A.1947); Rosenberg v. Board of Com'rs of City of Camden, 137 N.J.L. 505, 60 A.2d 617 (Sup.Ct.1948). Defendants urge that the requirements for approval by the building inspector and the superintendent of the fire ......
-
Ostroff v. Board of Com'rs of City of Camden, A--179
...508 (Sup.Ct. 1948); 335 U.S. 889, 69 S.Ct. 250, 93 L.Ed. ---. It is significant that in the case of Rosenberg v. Board of Com'rs of City of Camden, 137 N.J.L. 505, 60 A.2d 617 (1948), the Supreme Court held the ordinance sub judice to be within the scope of municipal Secondly, the plaintiff......
-
Sea Isle City v. Vinci
...some norm or standard by which all persons may know their rights and obligations thereunder. Rosenberg v. Board of Commissioners of City of Camden, 137 N.J.L. 505, 60 A.2d 617 (Sup.Ct.1948); P. J. Ritter Co. v. Mayor of City of Bridgeton, 135 N.J.L. 22, 50 A.2d 1 (Sup.Ct.1946), affirmed 137......