Zellers v. City Council of Bridgeton

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Zellers v. City Council of Bridgeton

126 A. 477, 2 N.J. Misc. 958, 1924 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 54

DecidedOctober 7, 1924

StatusPublished

This text of 126 A. 477 (Zellers v. City Council of Bridgeton) 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

Zellers v. City Council of Bridgeton, 126 A. 477, 2 N.J. Misc. 958, 1924 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 54 (N.J. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The petitioner in this case obtained a rule to show cause why a peremptory or alternative writ of mandamus should pot issue commanding the city council of the city of Bridge-ton to issue to the petitioner a license to operate auto buses of jitneys over the route set forth in his written- application made for such license. Yoluminous testimony was taken under the rule. It is sufficient to say that the granting and issuing of licenses for such purpose are not purely ministerial acts. To warrant the-issuing of the writ'in any case, the right of the petitioner to it must be clear and the public [959]*959duty sought to be enforced must be clear and specific. The writ is never granted in a doubtful case. Uszkay v. Dill, 92 N. J. L. 329; Constam v. Darby, 95 Id. 318. It seems unnecessary to point out that the writ allowed in a former case by this court, Nos. 241 and 242, June term, 1922, is not in point. There the licenses were granted subject to the approval of the New Jersey state highway commission. No such approval was either required or obtained. The license having been withheld on that specific ground. The writ was allowed. No such state of facts appears by the record in the present case.

The writ is denied and the rule to show cause is discharged.

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

Per Curiam.

The petitioner in this case obtained a rule to show cause why a peremptory or alternative writ of mandamus should pot issue commanding the city council of the city of Bridge-ton to issue to the petitioner a license to operate auto buses of jitneys over the route set forth in his written- application made for such license. Yoluminous testimony was taken under the rule. It is sufficient to say that the granting and issuing of licenses for such purpose are not purely ministerial acts. To warrant the-issuing of the writ'in any case, the right of the petitioner to it must be clear and the public [959]*959duty sought to be enforced must be clear and specific. The writ is never granted in a doubtful case. Uszkay v. Dill, 92 N. J. L. 329; Constam v. Darby, 95 Id. 318. It seems unnecessary to point out that the writ allowed in a former case by this court, Nos. 241 and 242, June term, 1922, is not in point. There the licenses were granted subject to the approval of the New Jersey state highway commission. No such approval was either required or obtained. The license having been withheld on that specific ground. The writ was allowed. No such state of facts appears by the record in the present case.

The writ is denied and the rule to show cause is discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A. 477, 2 N.J. Misc. 958, 1924 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 54, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zellers-v-city-council-of-bridgeton-nj-1924.