Hill Dredging Co. v. Ventnor City

78 A. 677, 77 N.J. Eq. 467, 1910 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 41
CourtNew Jersey Court of Chancery
DecidedJuly 7, 1910
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 78 A. 677 (Hill Dredging Co. v. Ventnor City) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hill Dredging Co. v. Ventnor City, 78 A. 677, 77 N.J. Eq. 467, 1910 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 41 (N.J. Ct. App. 1910).

Opinion

Leaming, V. C.

I will advise an order denying a preliminary writ.

First. A municipal corporation cannot be bound by an engagement which it had no power to make; and the corporate powers of such a corporation cannot be extended by the operation of the doctrine of estoppel. It follows that the defence of ultra vires is available to a municipal corporation. These principles appear to be well established; they arise from the public necessity of limiting the powers of the officers of such corporations to such engagements as are within the scope of the powers conferred upon the municipality by the legislature. 1 Dill. Mun. Corp. (3d ed.) § 457. An examination of the corporate powers of defendant corporation and its officers, as defined in P. L. 1897 p. 40, fails to disclose any power of the common council to grant to or for the benefit of complainant the privilege of laying pipes in or upon the public streets within the municipality for the purpose named in the bill. The grant must be treated as void.

Second. Should the permission which was granted be regarded as valid and binding upon the municipality, the affidavits filed in behalf of defendant disclose that the pipes have not been used for pumping sand to the beach front, as named in the permission, but have been used to pump mud and sewer filth and have thus endangered the public health. As these statements are not denied they must be assumed to be true. The duty of this court to refuse to restrain defendant municipality from interfering with acts of the nature stated seems manifest.

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

Related

Sagarese v. Bd. of Health, Morristown
99 A.2d 533 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1953)
Petrozello v. Davis
88 A.2d 672 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1952)
Hoboken Local No. 2 v. City of Hoboken
44 A.2d 329 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1945)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
78 A. 677, 77 N.J. Eq. 467, 1910 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 41, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-dredging-co-v-ventnor-city-njch-1910.