Case ID: njl_69/html/0193-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Garrison, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HIRAM E. BUDD ET AL. v. THE CITY OF CAMDEN AND THE CAMDEN AND SUBURBAN RAILWAY COMPANY.
    Argued November 10, 1902
    Decided February 24, 1903.
    1. A prosecutor in certiorari will be held in laches where six years have passed before the legality of the ordinance had been directly drawn in question by the application for the writ.
    2. » Whether the use of the highway was a reasonable one for a trolley company, in view of the facts, was for the municipality and not for the court.
    On application for writ of certiorari.
    
    Before Justices Garrison and Garretson.
    Eor the applicants, Francis D. Weaver.
    
    For the defendants, Edward A. Armstrong.
    
   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.