Fagen v. Mayor and Council of City of Hoboken

Citation85 N.J.L. 297,88 A. 1027
PartiesFAGEN v. MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF CITY OF HOBOKEN et al.
Decision Date17 November 1913
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)

(Syllabus by the Court.)

For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 7, pp. 6469, 6470; vol. 8, p. 7799.]

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Certiorari by Lawrence Fagen against the Mayor and Council of the City of Hoboken and others. From a judgment dismissing a writ of certiorari (86 Atl. 1025), prosecutor appeals. Reversed.

Merritt Lane, of Jersey City, for appellant.

John Fallon, of Hoboken, for respondents.

BERGEN, J. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Supreme Court dismissing a writ of certiorari allowed to review certain resolutions passed by the common council of the city of Hoboken authorizing payment to the Ivins Printing & Publishing Company for the publication of certain municipal advertisements.

The question involves the construction of a statute entitled "An act in relation to city printing and official advertisements in cities of the second class of this state," which provides: "That it shall be lawful for the common council, board of aldermen or other governing body, with the consent of the mayor, of any city of the second class in this state, to designate by resolution the official newspaper or newspapers published in any such city, in which shall be solely published all official notices, ordinances, advertisements, minutes and official proceedings relating to the municipal affairs of such city, and to fix a compensation to be paid by the city for the service rendered by such official newspaper or newspapers." All inconsistent laws are repealed. C. S. vol. 3, p. 3767, § 24. Under this law the "Hoboken Observer" was appointed the official newspaper of the city of Hoboken, a city of the second class; no other newspaper being appointed in the manner required by the statute. Notwithstanding this appointment, the city clerk caused certain city advertisements to be published in a newspaper published by the Ivins Printing & Publishing Company, called the "New Inquirer." This company presented a bill for the cost of such advertising to the common council, who ordered it paid by resolution, which was not approved by the mayor, although he subsequently signed the warrant for payment. The resolution for payment is assailed by the prosecutor upon the ground that the newspaper published by the Ivins Printing & Publishing Company was not a newspaper designated by the municipality for the publication of official advertisements, and therefore, as such publications could not be authorized by the city clerk nor by the common council to be published in any newspaper other than that designated under the statute, the resolution for payment was illegal. The Supreme Court held the contention of the prosecutor to be unsound and affirmed the resolution. The opinion written for the Supreme Court declares that the object of the statute "was to give notice to those who might be interested in proceedings of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • State ex rel. City of Excelsior Springs v. Smith
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 29 Abril 1935
    ... ... Louis, 262 S.W. 379; ... Dysart v. St. Louis, 11 S.W.2d 1044; Fagen v ... Hoboken, 88 A. 1027, 85 N. J. Law 297. A city cannot ... expend ... delegates legislative powers to a committee created by the ... council. 43 C. J. 245; Childers v. Holmes, 68 S.W ... 1046, 95 Mo.App. 154; ... MAINTENANCE -- OPERATION. -- In addition to other powers, the ... Mayor and Council of cities of the third class are hereby ... authorized and ... ...
  • Jones v. Buford
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 4 Noviembre 1976
    ...293, 297, 30 A. 531 (Sup.Ct.1894); Clark v. Elizabeth, 61 N.J.L. 565, 581--82, 40 A. 616, 737 (E. & A. 1898); Fagen v. Hoboken, 85 N.J.L. 297, 299, 88 A. 1027 (E. & A. 1913); McDonald v. Hudson Cty. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 99 N.J.L. 170, 172, 122 A. 801 (E. & A. 1923); Leeds v. Harrison,......
  • Como Farms v. Foran
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • 3 Febrero 1950
    ...construed as mandatory. See Clark v. City of Elizabeth, 61 N.J.L. 565, 581, 40 A. 616, 737 (E. & A. 1898); Fagen v. City of Hoboken, 85 N.J.L. 297, 299, 88 A. 1027 (E. & A. 1913). Indeed, in B. R. Waldron & Sons Co. v. Milk Control Board, 131 N.J.L. 267, 270, 35 A.2d 27, 29 (Sup.Ct.1944) af......
  • Jones v. Buford
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • 5 Febrero 1975
    ...311, 71 A.2d 201, 203 (App.Div.1950); and see, Clark v. Elizabeth, 61 N.J.L. 565, 581, 40 A. 616 (E. & A.1898); Fagan v. Hoboken, 85 N.J.L. 297, 299, 88 A. 1027 (E. & A.1913). 'The intention emerges from the spirit and policy of the statute rather than the literal sense of particular terms.......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT