Welsh v. Town of Morristown
Decision Date | 20 July 1923 |
Docket Number | No. 204.,204. |
Citation | 121 A. 697 |
Parties | WELSH v. TOWN OF MORRISTOWN et al. |
Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Certiorari by Laclare L. Welsh against the Town of Morristown, and others. Writ dismissed.
Argued June term, 1923, before TRENCHARD, PARKER, and BERGEN, JJ.
Maximillian M. Stallman, of Newark, for prosecutor.
N. C. Toms, of Morristown, and Conover English, of Newark, for defendants.
This writ brings up an ordinance of the town of Morristown entitled "An ordinance to regulate traffic on the driveway lying on the east side of the shelter house of the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Company in Morristown, extending from the American Railway Express office to Lackawanna place." It ordains that:
A penalty for violation is prescribed in the ordinance.
The status of the prosecutor is that he has a contract with the railroad company to furnish exclusive taxicab service at the station. That contract was entered into before the ordinance in question was passed. By it the company states its desire to regulate cab service and grants to the prosecutor "the exclusive right to solicit business as a cabman" on its station grounds and "the exclusive privilege of parking vehicles employed in said cab service when not in actual use in the spaces shown in green on the blueprint map hereto attached." One of such spaces is that described in the ordinance.
No question is raised with respect to the passage of the ordinance, nor is it challenged as an unreasonable exercise of municipal powers. Of the four reasons assigned by the prosecutor the first is generally that it is beyond the power of the town to enact, and the other three rest on constitutional grounds, viz.: That it deprives the prosecutor of his property without due process of law, takes his property for public use without just compensation, and denies him the equal protection of the laws.
As we have seen, the ordinance in form and substance is on its face aimed at the regulation of vehicular traffic at the railroad station at a particular place in the driveway lying on the east side of the shelter house of the railroad company extending from the American Railway Express office to Lackawanna place.
It thereby and otherwise appears that the driveway in question was and is devoted to public use, although the fee thereof remained in the railroad company.
This track elevation contract also contains this broad and significant language:
"It is further agreed that the town may and shall exercise all necessary police powers in and upon the station, station grounds, approaches and driveways, for the purpose of regulating foot and vehicular traffic at said station, and for the enforcement of the rules and regulations of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Delaware Co v. Town of Morristown 1928
...held this ordinance to be a valid regulation of traffic under general power of the town and under the track elevation agreement. 98 N. J. Law, 630, 121 A. 697, affirmed by the Court of Errors and Appeals sub nomine Welsh v. Potts, 99 N. J. Law, 528, 124 A. 926. Upon the termination of that ......
-
Gilman v. City of Newark
...of private property. Monmouth Lumber Co. v. Ocean Township, 9 N.J. 64, 71, 87 A.2d 9 (1952). As was said in Welsh v. Morristown, 98 N.J.L. 630, 634, 121 A. 697, 699 (Sup.Ct.1923), affirmed Welsh v. Potts, 99 N.J.L. 528, 124 A. 926 (E. & A. '* * * Every citizen holds his property subject to ......
- Town of West New York v. Bock
-
Bayshore Sewerage Co. v. Department of Environmental Protection
...1 (1952), cert. den. 344 U.S. 819, 73 S.Ct. 14, 97 L.Ed. 637 (1952), our New Jersey Supreme Court, quoting from Welsh v. Morristown, 98 N.J.L. 630, 634, 121 A. 697 (Sup.Ct.1923), aff'd per curiam on opinion below, 99 N.J.L. 528, 124 A. 926 (E. & A. 1924), held Every citizen holds his proper......