7/28/2019 Legal Brief of Mansfield & Swett, Inc., and Ridge
Holding Co. v. Town of West Orange
1/2
Mansfield & Swett, Inc., and Ridge Holding Co. v. Town of
West Orange
198 A. 225 (1926)Supreme Court of New Jersey
Parties: Plaintiff: Mansfield & Swett, Inc. and Ridge
Holding Co.Defendant: Town of West Orange
Facts: On March 10th, 1936, Mansfield & Swett, Inc.,
contracted to purchasefrom its co-prosecutor, Ridge Holding Co., a
tract of land situate in the town of West Orange, atthe northwest
corner of Gregory avenue and Northfield road, comprising four and a
half acres.Shortly thereafter, it prepared and presented to the
town's board of commissioners for approval asurvey and map
delineating a proposed subdivision of the tract into nineteen lots
and two streets,the development to be known as "Shadowlawn." The
lands are located in a "residential" zonedelimited by the local
zoning ordinance; and it is planned to erect thereon nineteen
dwellinghouses for sale at prices ranging between $15,000 and
$18,000. In accordance with the provisionsof an existing ordinance
a meeting was held on May 5th, 1936, which referred the matter to
theplanning board "for their recommendations in the premises." That
body, after public hearing had,"disapproved the proposed plan." The
transcript of the minutes incorporated in the return
discloses the rejection was "due to the fact" that the plan
"does not conform with thedevelopments along Gregory avenue,
between Northfield road and Mt. Pleasant avenue, and thatthe
greater number of property owners expressed their opinion objecting
to same at publichearing held." The proceedings were thereupon
brought to the Supreme Court of New Jersey bycertiorari.
Legal Issue: The issue involved is the constitutional validity
of the cited enablingstatute by the Town of West Orange. The case
argues that the statute violates the due processclauses of the
federal and state constitutions, in that "it deprives an owner of
the proper use of hisproperty." It is said that zoning does not
embrace planning, and that the cases classifyingmunicipal zoning as
outside the general police power of the state are, by analogy,
decisive of thequestion.
Holding: In an opinion by Justice Heher, the case was "remanded
to the planningboard in order that the grounds of disapproval may
be 'stated upon its records' as required by thestatute." 15N.J.
Mis. R. 441.
Rational: The court stated in its opinion that the planning
board considered theviews and desires of the neighboring estate
owners as determinative. The board's original actionwas
indisputably made to rest upon this ground alone. As pointed out,
its minutes recite that therejection of the plan was due to its
non-conformance with neighboring "developments" and theobjections
of "the greater number of property owners" in the vicinity, whose
several estatescomprise from one to five acres and contain but one
large mansion house, valued at from $50,000to $75,000 each, and
whose objections were based upon aesthetic considerations and
the
conviction that a development on this scale would depreciate
their particular properties. Thisevinces a palpable misconception
of the law. The standard is not the advantage or detriment
toparticular neighboring landowners, but rather the effect upon the
entire community as a social,economic and political unit. That,
which makes for the exclusive and preferential benefit of
suchparticular landowner, with no relation to the community as a
whole, is not a valid exercise of thissovereign power. That
authority may not be exerted to bar "the ordinary use of property
becauserepugnant to the sentiment or desires of a particular class
residing in the immediate neighborhoodthereof;" it may be
interposed only in the event that the "use is detrimental to the
interests of thepublic at large." The neighboring owners do not
possess the right to impose, for their own special
7/28/2019 Legal Brief of Mansfield & Swett, Inc., and Ridge
Holding Co. v. Town of West Orange
2/2
benefit, restrictions upon the lawful use of the tract in
question. In view of the board's manifestmisapprehension of its
authority, and its disregard of fundamental principles and
statutoryconsiderations in this and other particulars to be
presently mentioned, the court is of the opinionthat the cause
should be remanded for a re-examination and determination of the
issue in the lightof the correct principles.
Critical Analysis:The court upholds the ideals and principals of
the use of subdivision regulation as a land
use control device to shape the growth of a community. This is
stated in the courts definitions ofpolice power and its
interpretation their of within the opinion of the court. Though it
supports theideas of subdivision regulation, it does have a problem
with the way that the planning board ofWest Orange came to its
conclusion, thus remanding the case back to the planning board
forrevaluation with recommendations from the court, more
specifically that the grounds that theplanning board used to
disapprove of the proposed development be stated in its records.
Theruling provides the basis in that subdivision regulation in the
use of controlling land use is withinthe framework of the
Constitution, under the ideals of police power, thus paving the way
for thecurrent uses of subdivision regulation that we see in
community zoning today.
