Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Giant Tiger Corp. v. Board of Commissioners

Decided: March 11, 1939.

GIANT TIGER CORPORATION OF CAMDEN, NEW JERSEY, PROSECUTOR,
v.
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF CAMDEN, DEFENDANT



On certiorari.

For the prosecutor, Bleakly, Stockwell & Burling (Henry F. Stockwell, of counsel).

For the defendant, Firmin Michel (William J. Shepp, of counsel).

Before Justices Trenchard, Parker and Perskie.

Parker

The opinion of the court was delivered by

PARKER, J. This writ of certiorari brings up a licensing ordinance of the city of Camden. The attack seems to be upon the ordinance as a whole and not upon any conviction thereunder. Some twelve reasons are advanced, but the argument in general and the brief do not seem to treat of any particular reason separate from the others. Generally speaking, the claim is that the ordinance is not within the power of the municipal body, that it is unreasonable, discriminatory, confiscatory, special in its application, and that it violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the National Constitution.

The ordinance under consideration is modeled closely after an ordinance of the city of Trenton in pari materia, which was considered by this court in Giant Tiger Corp. et al. v. Board of Commissioners of Trenton, 11 N.J. Mis. R. 797, affirmed on opinion below, 113 N.J.L. 34. A somewhat similar case is Hoffman v. Borough of South River, 13 N.J. Mis. R. 618. In that also the attack was on the ordinance, and a writ of certiorari was denied. Although it is not definitely claimed that the Camden ordinance differs in any essential particular from the Trenton ordinance, it may be advisable to exhibit the two in parallel columns for purposes of comparison, noting that it has been necessary to make a slight change in the order of sections in the Camden ordinance for the purpose of parallelism. The two ordinances follow:

TRENTON CAMDEN

Sec. 1. "That no person, Sec. 1. "No person, firm or

firm, partnership or corpora- corporation shall operate,

tion shall engage in the busi- conduct or maintain, or en-

ness of operating, conducting gage in the business of ope-

or maintaining a food market rating, conducting or main-

within any building or struc- taining a food market within

ture within the limits of the any building or structure

City of Trenton, and renting within the limits of the City

or leasing more than four of Camden, New Jersey, and

concessions in any such build- renting or leasing more than

ing or structure to persons, four concessions in any such

natural or artificial, to carry building or structure, to per-

on various kinds and types of sons, natural or artificial, to

businesses therein, without carry on various kinds or

having first obtained a license types of businesses therein

therefor. without having ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.