Court Opinion

ID: 9715224
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:58:02.757374+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:32.728755
License: Public Domain

Ebancis, J.
(concurring). I concur in the opinion of Justice Buklxfg. However, with respect to Sherman v. City of Paterson, 82 N. J. L. 345 (Sup. Ct. 1912); Fennan v. Atlantic City, 88 N. J. L. 435 (Sup. Ct. 1916), affirmed 90 N. J. L. 675 (E. & A. 1917); Schachter v. Hauenstein, 92 N. J. L. 104 (Sup. Ct. 1918); Mazzarelli v. City of *197Elizabeth, 11 N. J. Misc. 150 (Sup. Ct. 1933); Richman v. Board of Commissioners of the City of Newark, 122 N. J. L. 180 (Sup. Ct. 1939), which are relied on by appellants, I desire to reiterate the statement contained in my concurrence in Hertz Washmobile System v. Village of South Orange, 25 N. J. 207 (1957), that to the extent that such cases may be said to approve municipal action in singling out some business for closing on Sunday and of allowing others (not works of necessity or charity or within some other exception for which provision is made) to remain open, either by express language or by implication, as by the adoption of a laissez faire attitude toward them, in my judgment they, too, fly in the face of the controlling legislative will and should be overruled.