Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of Essex County v. Essex County Park Comm'n

• Decision Date: 10 December 1898
• Citation: 41 A. 957,62 N.J.L. 376
• Parties: BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF ESSEX COUNTY v. ESSEX COUNTY PARK COMMISSION.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

41 A. 957

62 N.J.L. 376

BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF ESSEX COUNTY

v. ESSEX COUNTY PARK COMMISSION.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Dec. 10, 1898.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error to supreme court.

Application by the Essex county park commission for a writ of mandamus against the board of chosen freeholders of the county of Essex. A demurrer filed by the former to the return made by the latter was overruled, and it brings error. Affirmed.

Halsey M. Barrett, for plaintiff in error.

Robert H. McCarter, for defendant in error.

GARRISON, J. The controversy in this case is between the Essex county park commission and the board of chosen freeholders of that county. The issue is presented by a demurrer filed by the former to the return made by the latter to an alternative writ of mandamus. The prayer of the relators was for a mandamus to compel the board of freeholders to issue bonds to the amount of $500,000 to meet the expenses incurred by the commission. The return of the freeholders to the alternative writ set up the acceptance by the voters of the county of a legislative provision upon which the issue of the bonds depended, and, after alleging that such acceptance was by an election held under the park commission act, showed that by a later general act there had been a revision of the laws concerning elections, and thereupon charged that the latter act had superseded the former. The park act was approved February 21, 1898 (P. L. p. 19). The revision of the election laws was approved April 4, 1898 (P. L. p. 237). The election under the park act was held on April 12, 1898. To this return the park commission demurred, and moved that it be quashed. The issue, therefore, is whether the acceptance or rejection of the supplement to the park act was properly submitted to the voters of the county at an election held in accordance with the provisions of that act, or whether it should have been submitted under the provisions of the fifty-second section of the general election law. The ultimate question is whether the park act, in so far as it prescribed a special mode for holding elections for the acceptance of its supplements, was repealed by the passage of the section of the revised election law having for its object the regulation of "the submission of propositions" at any election.

The general doctrine upon this subject is in no wise in any doubt, although it has been upon different occasions expressed with varying shades of meaning. Behind all of the subsidiary rules furnished by the decided cases is the fundamental principle that the special feature of an earlier act is repealed by a later general act only when such a legislative intent appears. How it may appear is the distinguishing mark of the cases. Various indications have been taken as affording grounds for the discovery of the purpose to repeal. The most common, perhaps, are repugnance or inconsistency between acts in pari materia, an intention to substitute the new law for the old, and a purpose to prescribe the only rule upon the subject. Illustrations of each are to be found in the decided cases in our own state. Morris & E. R. Co. v. Railroad Taxation Com'rs, 37 N. J. Law, 228; School Dist. v. Whitehead, 13 N. J. Eq. 290; Vreeland v. Jersey City, 54 N. J. Law, 49, 22 Atl. 1052; Bank v. Bridges, 30 N. J. Law, 116; Mayor, etc., of New Brunswick v. Williamson, 44 N. J. Law, 165; Brown v. Mullica Tp., 48...