West v. City of Asbury Park

Decision Date21 November 1916
Citation99 A. 190,89 N.J.Law 402
PartiesWEST et al. v. CITY OF ASBURY PARK et al.
CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court

Certiorari by Joseph West and others against the City of Asbury Park and others. Writ dismissed.

Argued June term, 1916, before SWAYZE, MINTURN, and KALISCH, JJ.

Charles F. Dittmar, of Freehold, for prosecutors. Durand, Ivins & Carton, of Asbury Park, for defendants.

SWAYZE, J. The power of the Legislature to authorize municipal corporations to regulate the use of the streets by vehicles even to the extent of excluding vehicular traffic is established. Barnes v. Essex County Park Commission, 86 N. J. Law, 141, 91 Atl. 1019. The power to regulate the use by automobiles and motor vehicles is also settled. Unwen v. State, 73 N. J. Law, 529, 64 Atl. 163, affirmed State v. Unwin, 75 N. J. Law, 500, 68 Atl. 110; Cleary v. Johnston, 79 N. J. Law, 49, 74 Atl. 538; Kane v. State, 81 N. J. Law, 594, 80 Atl. 453, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 237; Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U. S. 610, 35 Sup. Ct. 140, 59 L. Ed. 38.5.

The only questions open in the case are: (1) Whether the city has been authorized by the Legislature to regulate the use by auto busses, commonly called jitneys, in the manner prescribed by the ordinance now in question; (2) whether the attempted regulation is so discriminatory as to deprive the owners of the equal protection of the laws.

The power of the city is to be found in its charter (P. L. 1897, p. 46; C. S. p. 1297) and in the act of 1916 (P. L. p. 283). The charter authorizes the council to regulate, clean, and keep in repair the streets and highways (P. L. 1897, p. 51, § 18, subd. 7), to regulate the speed and running of motor, electric, or other cars through the city (subdivision 11), and to license and regulate all carriages and vehicles used for the transportation of passengers and goods and chattels of any kind, and the owners and drivers of vehicles and means of transportation, and to impose license fees for revenue (subdivision 26), and to make and establish such other ordinances as they may deem necessary to carry into effect the powers and duties conferred on them and as they may deem proper for the good government, order, protection of persons and property, preservation of the public health, and prosperity of the city. C. S. p. 1305, pl. 2458.

The act of 1916 requires the owner of an auto bus to obtain the consent of the board having control of public streets for the operation of the auto bus and the use of the streets. It enacts that no such consent shall become effective and no such operation shall be permitted until the owner has filed with the chief fiscal officer of the city an insurance policy of a company duly licensed to transact business in the sum of $5,000 insuring against loss from liability imposed by law upon the owner of the auto bus for bodily Injury or death as the result of accident occurring by reason of the ownership, maintenance, or use of the auto bus on the streets. The statute also requires that the owner shall execute a power of attorney to the fiscal officer of the city to acknowledge service of process. Section 3 requires the payment to the city of 5 per cent. of the gross receipts as a monthly franchise tax for revenue for the use of the city.

The ordinance provides that the board of commissioners of the city may determine the reasonable seating capacity of an auto bus, the routes, hours of service, and terminal points, and makes it unlawful to omit to operate an auto bus over the designated route during the hours prescribed in the consent of the city; to omit to display a sign to indicate that the consent has been granted; to operate an auto bus without displaying a sign showing the terminal and route, and the amount of fare when it exceeds five cents; to operate an auto bus with passengers riding outside the body of the bus, or with a greater number of passengers than the auto bus is entitled to carry; to drive rapidly past an auto bus, trolley car, or vehicle to obtain a passenger; to race with any other vehicle; to refuse to carry passengers unless the auto bus is loaded to its capacity; to permit an auto bus to stand in a street outside of the stand provided for a longer time than is necessary to take on or discharge passengers; to receive or discharge passengers except at the curb, or the regularly provided stand, and except at the nearest side of street intersections and on the right-hand side of the street; to place a sign on the windshield or where it might obscure the view of the driver. It is also made unlawful for the driver to collect fares or to take on or discharge passengers while the auto bus is in motion.

We think all the provisions we have recited are well within the express powers given to the council or within the powers necessarily inferred from the general clause. That like powers may be implied from the general control of streets has long been settled. We need refer only to the leading case of Commonwealth v. Stodder, 2 Cush. (...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 cases
  • Smallwood v. Jeter
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • February 12, 1926
    ... ... Osborne, 171 Iowa 678, Ann. Cas. 1917E, 497, 154 N.W ... 294; City of Portland v. Portland Ry., L. & P. Co., 80 Ore ... 271, 156 P. 1058.) ... 30, 61 L.Ed. 222; Berry on Automobiles, ... 4th ed., sec. 113; West v. City of Asbury Park, 89 ... N.J.L. 402, 99 A. 190; In re Kessler, ... ...
  • Blumenthal v. City of Cheyenne
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • November 18, 1947
    ... ... time, limitation of the right to park or allow a vehicle to ... remain standing on the street is necessary to a proper ... regulation ... Central Avenue, running north and south, divides the city ... between east and west. It is an extension of Yellowstone ... Highway, which enters the city from the north. The city is ... delegated to municipalities. West v. Asbury Park, 89 ... N.J.L. 402, 99 A. 190. And, while such regulation may be ... considered drastic in ... ...
  • Garford Trucking, Inc. v. Hoffman, 242.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • March 27, 1935
    ...safety; it is fair and reasonable and is not arbitrary. The following are but a few of the many illustrative cases: West v. Asbury Park, 89 N. J. Law, 402, 99 A. 190; People's Rapid Transit Co. v. Atlantic City, 105 N. J. Law, 286, 144 A. 630, affirmed Parlor Car De Luxe Coach Co. v. Atlant......
  • Liberty Highway Co. v. Michigan Public Utilities Commission
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • December 11, 1923
    ... ... 344, 127 N.W. 353; Attorney General v. Hillyer, ... supra; City of Lansing v. Board of State Auditors, ... 111 Mich. 327, 69 N.W. 723 ... 657, 168 P. 516, L.R.A ... 1918B, 909, Ann. Cas. 1918C, 942; West v. Asbury ... Park, 89 N.J.Law, 402, 99 A. 190; Jitney Bus ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT