Budd v. City of Camden

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Budd v. City of Camden

54 A. 569, 69 N.J.L. 193, 1903 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 177

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedFebruary 24, 1903

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 54 A. 569 (Budd v. City of Camden) 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

Budd v. City of Camden, 54 A. 569, 69 N.J.L. 193, 1903 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 177 (N.J. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court ivas delivered by

Garrison, J.

The prosecutor is in laches-. The ordinance sought to be set aside was passed on September 19th, 1896. The prosecutor at that time knew of the proposed ordinance, for he refused to give his consent to the exercise of municipal discretion in the premises, and employed counsel, who, on August 28th, 1897, filed a bill in equity. At this date the ordinance had stood for nearly a year and work had been done under it. Six years had passed before the legality of the ordinance ivas directly drawn in question by the present application. During all this time the trolley company had a right to assume that its ordinance was valid and to act upon that assumption, which it has done.'

We think, moreover, that the question Avhether the use of the highway was a reasonable one in view of the facts was for the municipality and not for the court. The application is denied.

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

The opinion of the court ivas delivered by

Garrison, J.

The prosecutor is in laches-. The ordinance sought to be set aside was passed on September 19th, 1896. The prosecutor at that time knew of the proposed ordinance, for he refused to give his consent to the exercise of municipal discretion in the premises, and employed counsel, who, on August 28th, 1897, filed a bill in equity. At this date the ordinance had stood for nearly a year and work had been done under it. Six years had passed before the legality of the ordinance ivas directly drawn in question by the present application. During all this time the trolley company had a right to assume that its ordinance was valid and to act upon that assumption, which it has done.'

We think, moreover, that the question Avhether the use of the highway was a reasonable one in view of the facts was for the municipality and not for the court. The application is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A. 569, 69 N.J.L. 193, 1903 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/budd-v-city-of-camden-nj-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack