Adams v. Mayor and Common Council of City of Plainfield
| Decision Date | 14 June 1932 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 235, 266.,s. 235, 266. |
| Citation | 161 A. 647 |
| Parties | ADAMS v. MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF CITY OF PLAINFIELD. CONSHAY v. WEAN, City Clerk. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Certiorari by Paul P. Adams, prosecutor, against Mayor and Common Council of the City of Plainfield, and by the State, Thomas L. Conshay, prosecutor, against George B. Wean, City Clerk of the City of Plainfield, to review ordinances reducing salaries of firemen and of policemen in the City of Plainfield; the two cases having been argued together.
Ordinances affirmed.
Argued May term, 1932, before PARKER, CAMPBELL, and LLOYD, JJ.
McCarter & English, of Newark, and W. S. Angleman, of Plainfield, for prosecutors.
William Newcorn, of Newark, for respondent.
These cases were argued together and will be disposed of in one opinion. Writs of certiorari were granted in each case to review, in the one (No. 235), an ordinance reducing the salaries of firemen in the city of Plainfield, and, in the other (No. 266), an ordinance reducing the salaries of policemen in the same city. The prosecutors in both cases contend that the ordinances were invalid because beyond the power of the council to adopt them.
The police ordinance is attacked additionally on the grounds that it violated the tenure of Office Act, that it violated a contract, and that it was defective in its title. In the firemen's ordinance it is contended additionally that the reduction in salary could not be effected by an amendatory ordinance, but that the original ordinance would have first to be repealed.
The prosecutors in both cases place reliance on chapter 162, p. 291, Laws 1929 (Comp. St. Supp. § *136—320D(1), the effect of which will be referred to later.
The power to regulate salaries is accorded by article 13, section 1, of chapter 152, Laws 1917, chapter 134, Laws 1928 (Comp. St. Supp. § *136—301), which provides that "the governing body of every municipality shall have power and authority, by ordinance, notwithstanding any maximum or minimum limitation now fixed by statute, to fix and determine the amount of salary, wages and compensation to be paid each officer, employee, servant and agent of such municipality who, by law, is entitled to be paid a salary, wage or compensation," excepting certain elective officers and others whose salaries were fixed by the voters or by referendum.
From this it would seem beyond all question that the municipality was empowered by the act cited to fix the salaries of its police officers and firemen either by increasing or decreasing the compensation theretofore established, unless other legislation be found circumscribing this authority.
In this situation the act of 1929 is appealed to by the prosecutors. It provides as follows: "In addition to the methods now prescribed by law, the governing body of any municipality in this State, is hereby authorized and empowered, to fix and determine by ordinance, the annual compensation of all municipal employees, including members of the police and fire departments of any such municipality; provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to permit the reduction of the salary or compensation of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Galvin v. Kansas City
... ... P.2d 377; Heil v. Mayor and Board of Commissioners of ... City of ... McGoldrick, ... Comptroller, 194 N.E. 406, 266 N.Y. 199; Snell v ... Byington et al., 37 P.2d ... 699 (Wisc.); ... Adams v. Mayor, etc., of City of Plainfield, 161 A ... ...
-
Isola v. Borough of Belmar
...repealed. Whirl-O-Ball, Inc., v. City of Asbury Park, 136 N.J.L. 316, 319, 55 A.2d 463 (E. & A.1947); Adams v. Mayor, etc., of Plainfield, 109 N.J.L. 282, 284, 161 A. 647 (Sup.Ct.1932), affirmed 110 N.J.L. 377, 166 A. 164 (E. & A.1933). In the absence of an express repealer, the indication ......
-
In re Kellner's Estate
...533, affirmed 100 N. J. Law, 291, 126 A. 324; First National Bank v. Bianchi, 106 N. J. Eq. 333, 150 A. 774; Adams v. Mayor, etc., of Plainfield, 109 N. J. Law, 282, 161 A. 647. And it has been held that nothing short of an irreconcilable conflict between two statutes works a repeal by impl......
-
Stevens v. Haussermann
...of an express repealer, must be so clearly indicated as to leave no reasonable basis for doubt. Adams v. Mayor and Common Council of City of Plainfield, 109 N. J. Law, 282, 161 A. 647, affirmed 110 N. J. Law, 377, 166 A. 164. Moreover, it is clear that the "vacancy" contemplated by the stat......