Hates v. Mayor & Council of City of Hoboken

• Decision Date: 21 November 1919
• Citation: 108 A. 868
• Parties: HATES v. MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF CITY OF HOBOKEN.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

108 A. 868

HATES

v. MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF CITY OF HOBOKEN.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Nov. 21, 1919.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

(Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hudson County.

Action by Ellen F. Hayes against the Mayor and Council of the City of Hoboken. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Horace L. Allen, of Hoboken, for appellant.

Collins & Corbin, George S. Hobart, and Edward A. Markley, all of Jersey City, for respondent.

BLACK, J. This is an appeal from the Hudson circuit court, tried before Judge Campbell without a jury. The action was brought by the widow of Patrick J. Hayes, who died from a tumor of the bladder after 22 years of service on the police force. Her claim is based upon a supplement to Pension Fund Act 1916, p. 298, c. 144, § 1, which provides that—

"The widow of every member of such police force in any municipality of this state in which the act to which this is a supplement is applicable, where such member shall have paid or shall hereafter pay into the fund provided for by the act to which this act is a supplement the full amount of the annual assessments or contributions, who shall have died or shall hereafter die from causes other than injuries received in the performance of duty, and who shall have served at the time of his death nine years as a member of such police force, shall, so long as she remains unmarried, receive a pension equivalent to one-half of the pay of her deceased husband."

The first contention on the part of the municipality is that this judgment is erroneous, because the statute on which it is based is unconstitutional, violating the provision which prohibits any county, city, borough, etc., from giving any money or property to or in aid of any individual, association, or corporation, etc. Article 1, § 19. We think there is no merit in this contention. The pension fund is made up largely of enforced contributions by members of the police force. It is added to from the money collected for taxes. It is maintained in part by monthly contributions and annual assessments, which the policemen of the department were compelled to make and pay. The treasurer of the city, who is required to give bond, was given the possession of the fund. The moneys paid for pensions are a part of the compensation to be paid for the services rendered by members of the force, and are an inducing cause to their enlistments. Moreover, having enforced this law and compelled the husband to contribute to the fund for so long a period of time, the municipality ought not to be permitted to retain the enforced contributions.

Next is it said the statute is unconstitutional, because its object or purpose is not expressed in its title. Article 4, § 7, subd. 4. In addition to what has already been said, we think the title, as amended, does hot violate constitutional provisions, P. L. 1917, pp. 55, 56, cc. 26, 27; nor for that matter does the original title, P. L. 1911, p. 104, c. 72 (P. L. 1916, p. 141). An act providing for the pensioning of police officers and policemen in certain municipalities of this state expresses the general purpose. The method of distributing the pension, the term on which it shall list the beneficiaries in case of the death of the original one, are all detailed in the carrying out of the general scheme. In the interpretation of this constitutional provision the "object" of a law must not be confused with its product, said Mr. Justice Garrison, in the case of Moore v. Burdett,' 62 N. J. Law, 164, 40 Atl. 631. The object of every law, by force of the Constitution, must be single, and be expressed in...