Seaside Realty & Improvement Co. v. Atl. City

• Decision Date: 12 November 1906
• Citation: 64 A. 1081,74 N.J.L. 178
• Parties: SEASIDE REALTY & IMPROVEMENT CO. v. ATLANTIC CITY.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

64 A. 1081

74 N.J.L. 178

SEASIDE REALTY & IMPROVEMENT CO.

v. ATLANTIC CITY.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Nov. 12, 1906.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Certiorari by the Seaside Realty & Improvement Company against Atlantic City, to review a resolution of the city. Writ dismissed.

This writ brings up an ordinance of Atlantic City approved April 13, 1899, and a resolution of common council passed January 8, 1906. The ordinance was passed to carry out a scheme provided for in the statute passed in 1894 (P. L. 1894, p. 146). The first section of the act of 1894 provided that "it shall be lawful for the common council or other governing body of any city in this state, located on or near the ocean and embracing within its limits or jurisdiction any beach or ocean front, to open and lay out on or along such beach or ocean front, a public park or place of public resort or recreation." The second section provides that "whenever the common council or other governing body shall determine to open or lay out such a park or place for public resort or recreation, it shall first cause the interior or inland line of same to be established and suitably marked upon the ground, and cause a description of same to be filed at the office of the city clerk of said city there to remain of record; and such interior or inland line shall not he established further inland than ordinary high-water mark along such beach or ocean front and may extend along the same within the limits of such city or along any part thereof." Section third provides that when such interior line has been established it may be lawful for the common council to purchase or condemn all the land, real estate, property, and rights of persons and corporations situated lying and being within and between the lines so established and the exterior line now or hereafter established by the state riparian commissioners along and in front of property, over and across which such interior line has been established and to devote the same exclusively to public use as a public park or place of public resort and recreation, and keep the same forever open and unobstructed for such public use. By the ordinance, the city council determined to open and lay out a park or place of public resort and recreation, and determined, fixed, and established the interior or inland line for same, as required by the preceding statute, specifically stating the boundaries of said park. It empowered the city solicitor to cause the land within the limits of said park to be condemned, and directed the issue of bonds to raise money to pay for same. The resolution brought up rests upon the act of 1903, page 387. This act provides that whenever any public park has been, or shall hereafter be, laid out or provided for by ordinance, under the authority of any act of the Legislature, along or fronting upon any of the tide waters of this state, such municipality may apply to the riparian commissioners for a grant or conveyance to such city or municipality of lands under water within the limits of said park. The second section provides that "the commissioners may upon the payment therefor of a consideration, the amount of which shall he fixed in the manner now provided by law for the fixing of the amount of consideration to be paid for the grant of riparian land by said commissioners, make all such grants or conveyances applied for as aforesaid of the land under water owned by the State extending from the inland limits of such park to the exterior line established or to be hereafter established by the said commissioners." The resolution of January 8, 1906, authorized the finance committee to purchase from the state board of riparian commissioners all riparian lands not before purchased by individuals on the ocean front, paying therefor the fee fixed by the commissioners.

Argued June term, 1906, before FORT, GARRETSON, and REED, JJ.

Thompson & Cole, for prosecutor. Godfrey & Godfrey, for Atlantic City.

REED, J. (after stating the facts). Taking up the attacks leveled against the proceedings brought up in an orderly manner, I will first speak of the alleged unconstitutionality of the act of 1894, upon which act the validity of the ordinance and the resolution rests. It is asserted that the statute is special, because it does not include in the scope of its operations other cities not located near or on the ocean, but which may have a beach front. It seems useless to say more than was said in (he opinion in the case of Bowker v. Wright, 54 N. J. Law, 130, 23 Atl. 116, and in Johnson v. Ocean City (decided at the present term) 64 Atl. 987, involving a statute similar in substance to the act of 1894.

It is next said that the act of 1903 is unconstitutional for several reasons: First, because its object is not expressed in its title; second, because it is special and regulates the internal affairs of cities; and third, because it strips the owner of the ripa of equal protection of the law, and of his property without compensation. The act is entitled, "A further supplement to an Act to ascertain the rights of the state and of riparian owners in lands lying under the waters of the bay of New York and elsewhere in ...