Case Name: JAMES D. DRISCOLL v. THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1901-11-11
Citations: 67 N.J.L. 113
Docket Number: 
Parties: JAMES D. DRISCOLL v. THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 67
Pages: 113–113

Head Matter:
JAMES D. DRISCOLL v. THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM.
Submitted June 5, 1901
Decided November 11, 1901.
1. An ordinance .is void which fails to fix the license fee, but leaves it to some city official.
2. An ordinance passed under the act of May 10th, 1894 (Pwmph. L., p. 393), cannot authorize the imposition of a license fee as a condition to the right to vend milk, meat, bread or cake or any product of the vendor’s farm.
On certiorari.
Before Justices Van Syckel, Fort and Garretson.
For the prosecutor, William T. Hilliard.
For the defendant, Jonathan W. Acton.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Fort, J.
The ordinance brought up in this case is the same as that held void in Thurlow Medical Co. v. Salem, ante p. 111, decided at the present term, and hence this ease is ruled by that. But if that were not the fact and the ordinance were not void, it still would not bo a justification for the imposition of a license fee upon a milk vendor. We held, in the case of the Thurlow Medical Company, just referred to, that the city had power to impose licenses for revenue only, under the act of May 16th, 1894. This ordinance, being declared by its title to be one for revenue, must find support in that statute, but that act, by its proviso, expressly declares "that no person shall be required to take out a license in order to sell any product of his farm, or to sell meat, milk, bread or cake." Pamph. L., p. 393.
The ordinance is set aside.