Bourgeois v. Ocean City

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Bourgeois v. Ocean City

57 A. 262, 70 N.J.L. 622, 41 Vroom 622, 1904 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 210

DecidedFebruary 23, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 57 A. 262 (Bourgeois v. Ocean City) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bourgeois v. Ocean City, 57 A. 262, 70 N.J.L. 622, 41 Vroom 622, 1904 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 210 (N.J. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

Pjsr Curiam.

There appears tobe no authority for the city of Ocean City to make the street improvements proposed to be made under the resolution brought up by the writ except in the manner pointed out in section 48, subdivision 3, of the city charter. Pamph. L. 1897, p. 70. Under this section of the charter all such street improvements must be authorized by ordinance. Conceding, but not deciding, that the city of Ocean City has the power to malee the improvements on the ocean front ends of the streets and constructs proper approaches thereto upon the streets, still it is clear that such improvements are within legal contemplation street improvements and must be carried out by ordinance.

If the improvements contemplated by the resolution brought up are not properly designated as street improvements then the resolution must fail for lack of power to prove it. No authority was cited other than the authority to improve streets to sustain the action of the council in passing the resolution. We find none in the city charter. Pamph. L. 1897, p. 46.

The resolution is without authority and will be set aside, with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Pjsr Curiam.

There appears tobe no authority for the city of Ocean City to make the street improvements proposed to be made under the resolution brought up by the writ except in the manner pointed out in section 48, subdivision 3, of the city charter. Pamph. L. 1897, p. 70. Under this section of the charter all such street improvements must be authorized by ordinance. Conceding, but not deciding, that the city of Ocean City has the power to malee the improvements on the ocean front ends of the streets and constructs proper approaches thereto upon the streets, still it is clear that such improvements are within legal contemplation street improvements and must be carried out by ordinance.

If the improvements contemplated by the resolution brought up are not properly designated as street improvements then the resolution must fail for lack of power to prove it. No authority was cited other than the authority to improve streets to sustain the action of the council in passing the resolution. We find none in the city charter. Pamph. L. 1897, p. 46.

The resolution is without authority and will be set aside, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A. 262, 70 N.J.L. 622, 41 Vroom 622, 1904 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bourgeois-v-ocean-city-nj-1904.