Ross v. City of Long Branch

• Decision Date: 19 May 1906
• Citation: 73 N.J.L. 292,63 A. 609
• Parties: ROSS et al. v. CITY OF LONG BRANCH.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

63 A. 609

73 N.J.L. 292

ROSS et al.

v. CITY OF LONG BRANCH.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

May 19, 1906.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Certiorari by Emma K. ROSS and others to review a resolution passed by the mayor and council of the city of Long Branch. Proceedings affirmed.

Argued February term, 1906, before GARRISON, GARRETSON, and SWAYZE, JJ.

Joseph Coult, for prosecutors. Robert H. McCarter and Thomas P. Fay, for defendants.

SWAYZE, J. This case Involves the validity of a resolution awarding a contract for the building of a casino upon a tract of laud acquired by Long Branch for a public park. The objections urged upon the argument were: (1) That the act governing Long Branch does not authorize the building of a casino; (2) that the resolution submitting the issue of bonds to the people did not suggest such a use of the proceeds of bonds; (3) that the proceedings were by resolution, and not by ordinance; (4) that C. Asa Francis, who signed the contract as mayor, was at the time holding and exercising the office of sheriff of Monmouth county—the claim being that by statute his acceptance of the latter office rendered his commission for any other civil office null and void.

1. Long Branch is governed by chapter 168 of the Laws of 1903 (P. L. 1903, p. 292), as amended in 1904 (P. L. 1904, p. 340.) Section 14 (page 303) empowers the city council to make and establish such ordinances, other than those specifically mentioned in section 13 (page 296) as they may deem necessary to carry into effect the powers and duties conferred or imposed on them. Among the powers conferred on them is the power to raise money by tax for acquiring public grounds and parks, and for maintaining, regulating and protecting the same (section 36, p. 311); the power to lay out and open any public park or public square and to condemn land for the purpose (section 53, p. 318); and the power to provide for, construct, regulate, protect, and improve the parks, public burial grounds, or other public grounds in the city. Section 13, par. 13, as amended P. L. 1904, p. 347. We think these powers sufficient to include the power to improve newly acquired parks as well as parks already owned by the city. It was rather suggested than argued that the statute did not authorize the improvement of the former class. The force of the argument was directed to the point that the erection of a casino was not an improvement of the park. We do not think it necessary to define the word "casino." Obviously it is a building the use of which may vary from time to time. It is enough for the present purpose to say that the proceedings disclose that the building to be constructed is intended for public purposes, either for public amusement or convenience. Buildings used for such purposes are not uncommon in public parks, and serve a useful purpose not foreign to the purpose of public recreation for which parks are meant. Calling it a casino does not alter its character. We think that such a building may fairly be called an improvement. Buildings are commonly spoken of as improvements to the land. A similar opinion was expressed by this court in Knight v. Cape May, 61 N. J. Law, 149, 38 Atl. 752, where Justice Collins suggested the charter of Cape May...