Clark Thread Co. v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of Hudson County

• Decision Date: 19 February 1892
• Citation: 54 N.J.L. 265,23 A. 820
• Parties: CLARK THREAD CO. v. BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF HUDSON COUNTY.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

23 A. 820

54 N.J.L. 265

CLARK THREAD CO.

v. BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF HUDSON COUNTY.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Feb. 19, 1892.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Suit by the Clark Thread Company against the board of chosen freeholders of Hudson county to recover damages for an injury to plaintiff's buildings by a mob. Demurrer to the declaration overruled.

Argued November term, 1891, before the Chief Justice, and Depue and Van Syckel, JJ.

Vredenhurgh & Gnrretson, for plaintiff.

John A. McGrath, for defendant.

VAN SYCKEL, J. This is a suit under the act concerning riots, (Revision, p. 978,) to recover damages from the county of Hudson for injury which the plaintiff company alleges was done to its buildings by a mob in February, 1891. Sections 5, 6, and 7 of said act, which give the right of action, and direct how it shall be prosecuted, are substantially like the acts which have been enacted in New York and Pennsylvania.

The first ground of demurrer is that the fifth section of the act, which authorizes suit against the county, is not within the title of the act. The act as originally passed is found in P. L. 1864, p. 237, and is entitled "An act to provide for compensating parties whose property may be injured or destroyed in consequence of mobs or riots." At the time of the Revision the act of 1864 was made part of the riot act, entitled "An act to prevent mobs, riots, and tumultuous assemblies." The object of this act being to prevent mobs and riots, it is fair to presume that the legislature supposed that the purpose of the act would be promoted by making the political district, within which the tumult occurred, liable to pay damages done to private property. The unity of the object expressed in the title of an act must be sought in the end to be attained, and not in the means or details adopted to reach that end. Walter v. Town of Union, 33 N. J. Law, 350; Bumsted v. Govern, 47 N. J. Law, 368, 1 Atl. Rep. 835. In my judgment, the title of the act in the Revision is broad enough to permit the provisions of the act of 1864 to be incorporated in it.

The other causes assigned for demurrer relate to the sufficiency of the declaration. It appears that the declaration in this case is a copy of the declaration filed in the case of County of Allegheny v. Gibson, reported in 90 Pa. St. 397. As the recovery in that case was earnestly resisted, it may be assumed that the declaration was held to set forth in apt language a legal cause of action.

The only ground of demurrer which I deem it necessary to discuss is that the restrictive provisions in the statute are not noticed in the declaration. In declaring upon a covenantor upon articles of agreement, an exception in the body of the covenant or agreement must be set out and the subject-matter of the exception must be excluded from the breach assigned. If A....