State of New Jersey v. City of New York

• Decision Date: 04 December 1933
• Docket Number: No. 12,12
• Citation: 290 U.S. 237,54 S.Ct. 136,78 L.Ed. 291
• Parties: STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. CITY OF NEW YORK
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

290 U.S. 237

54 S.Ct. 136

78 L.Ed. 291

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

v CITY OF NEW YORK.

No. 12.

Argued Nov. 6, 1933.

Decided Dec. 4, 1933.

Messrs. Duane E. Minard, of Newark, N.J., and William A. Stevens, of Red Bank, N.J., for the State of New Jersey.

Messrs. Arthur J. W. Hilly and E. S. Benedict, both of New York City, for defendant.

PER CURIAM.

Leave having been granted, 279 U.S. 823, 49 S.Ct. 478, 73 L.Ed. 977, the state of New Jersey, May 20, 1929, filed its bill of complaint against the city of New York and prayed that the city be enjoined from dumping garbage or other noxious offensive, or injurious matter into the ocean or other waters of the United States off the coast of New Jersey and from otherwise polluting its waters and its beaches. Defendant answered, raising issues of fact. The Court appointed Edward K. Campbell special master, 280 U.S. 514, 50 S.Ct. 15, 74 L.Ed. 585, who took the evidence and reported the same, together with his findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for a decree.

He found that defendant had created, and was continuing to create, a public nuisance upon beaches and other property of plaintiff, concluded plaintiff was entitled to relief, and recommended that injunction be granted as prayed, but that defendant should be allowed a reasonable time within which to provide incinerators for the disposal of its garbage and rubbish. After hearing upon exceptions filed by defendant, the Court approved the master's report. As no evidence had been taken to show what time would be required, the master was directed to take evidence upon that subject and report his findings and a form of decree. 283 U.S. 473, 51 S.Ct. 519, 75 L.Ed. 1176. After evidence had been taken, the parties agreed upon the terms of an injunction and prepared a proposed form of decree, which together with the master's report was filed with the clerk.

December 7, 1931, the Court entered its decree, in the form of that submitted by the parties. Among other things, it ordered, adjudged, and decreed that on and after June 1, 1933, defendant be enjoined as prayed, and until then defendant utilize existing facilities to reduce dumping to the lowest practicable limit and file reports showing progress of construction and quantities of garbage and rubbish dumped. 284 U.S. 585, 52 S.Ct. 120, 76 L.Ed. 506.

Defendant's reports, filed in April and October, 1932, and April, 1933, show that it failed to take action necessary to cease dumping within the time specified in the decree. May 8, 1933, plaintiff filed its petition that defendant be ordered to show cause why it should not be adjudged in contempt of court. Defendant answered. It represented that, because of lack of financial means, the construction of the plants had been unavoidably delayed, and that it was unable, within the time allowed, to complete the plants and to cease dumping. It prayed that April 1, 1934, be fixed as the effective date of the decree.

The Court ordered these applications to be heard November 6, 1933, and appointed Edward K., Campbell special master to...