Citation Numbers: 156 A. 766, 108 N.J.L. 258
Judges: The opinion of the court was delivered by GUMMERE, CHIEF JUSTICE.
Filed Date: 10/19/1931
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
The present appellant obtained a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court to review the action of the board of public utility commissioners in declaring invalid a consent given by the board of trustees of Ocean Grove to the use of the streets therein by the prosecutor in the operation of auto buses. The theory upon which the board of public utility commissioners acted was that Ocean Grove was not a municipality, but was merely a part of the township of Neptune, and that the granting of the consent by it to the prosecutor to use the streets for the operation of auto buses therein was a nullity, the prosecutor being required first to obtain the consent of the township, and in addition the approval of the board of utility commissioners of that consent. The Supreme Court affirmed the action of the board of utility commissioners.
The contention of the present appellant, both before the Supreme Court and before this court, was and is that Ocean Grove is a municipality and not merely a part of the township of Neptune; that it had authority, under the act creating it, to grant licenses such as that now under consideration, and that licenses granted by it were valid and effective without the approval of the board of utility commissioners.
We consider the contention of the appellant that Ocean Grove is a municipality and not merely a portion of Neptune township, and subject to the jurisdiction of the latter, to be well founded. In the case of McCran v. Ocean Grove,
Our conclusion is that the judgment under review should be affirmed, for the reason that the consent, or license, granted by the municipality of Ocean Grove to the appellant did not become effective until it was approved by the board of *Page 261 public utility commissioners, and that until such approval was obtained the appellant was without any legal right to operate his buses in Ocean Grove. The fact that our conclusion, by necessary inference, disapproves the reasons which led the board of public utility commissioners to refuse to approve the license granted by Ocean Grove does not affect the result, for until such approval is obtained, no matter what the basis of the refusal to grant the approval may have been, the appellant is without legal right to operate his bus line in Ocean Grove.
For affirmance — THE CHIEF JUSTICE, PARKER, CAMPBELL, BODINE, DALY, DONGES, VAN BUSKIRK, KAYS, HETFIELD, DEAR, JJ. 10.
For reversal — None.