Young v. Landis Tp.

• Decision Date: 26 February 1906
• Citation: 62 A. 1133,73 N.J.L. 266
• Parties: YOUNG v. LANDIS TP. et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

62 A. 1133

73 N.J.L. 266

YOUNG

v. LANDIS TP. et al.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Feb. 26, 1906.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Certiorari by George B. Young to review an ordinance of the township of Landis. Ordinance set aside.

Argued November term, 1905, before SWAYZE and DIXON, JJ.

Henry S. Alvord and Howard Carrow, for prosecutor. Royal P. Tuller and Walter H. Bacon, for defendants.

DIXON, J. At the February term, 1902, the court ordered the present writ of certiorari to be dismissed for informality (Young v. Crane, 67 N. J. Law, 453, 51 Atl. 482), but afterwards it was reinstated and amended to comply with the views of the court by bringing in the township of Landis as a defendant it is now before us for consideration on the merits. The ordinance under review was passed June 11, 1901, and requires that the driveway of Landis avenue between Main avenue and the borough of Vineland be made 70 feet wide, being 35 feet on each side of its center line, and that all poles, posts, and trees within the limits of such driveway be forthwith removed. No proceedings to condemn any part of the proposed driveway are contemplated. One of the reasons assigned by the prosecutor for setting aside this ordinance is that a portion of the avenue to be affected thereby was dedicated specially for purposes inconsistent with its use as a driveway, and therefore the township had no authority to pass the ordinance.

The facts established by proofs recently submitted are that by proceedings taken in this court at the term of June, A. D. 1803, a highway was laid out 3 rods wide and about 18 miles long, extending from the neighborhood of May's Landing, in the county of Atlantic, to the road leading from Camel's Tavern to Bridgeton in the county of Salem; that the center line of this highway is coincident with the center line of Landis avenue; that Charles K. Landis was the owner of the property on both sides of this highway so far as it is now in question; that he, by his conveyances to and agreements with the purchasers of his property, dedicated to public use an additional width of 2.") feet on each side of the highway, but subject to certain regulations prescribed by him as to grass and shade trees, which, if observed, would preclude the use of this dedicated land as a driveway; and that these regulations were made known to and concurred in by the public authorities at the time of the dedication and have been substantially complied with ever since. Similar facts were...