Inhabitants of Orvil Tp. v. Mayor
| Decision Date | 08 November 1897 |
| Citation | 61 N.J.L. 107,38 A. 685 |
| Parties | INHABITANTS OF ORVIL TP. v. MAYOR, ETC., OF BOROUGH OF WOODCLIFF. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Case certified from circuit court, Bergen county, for advisory opinion.
Action by the inhabitants of the township of Orvil, in the county of Bergen, against the mayor and council of the borough of Woodcliff. Case certified, and judgment advised for plaintiff.
Argued June term, 1897, before MAGIE, C. J., and DEPUE, VAN SYCKEL, and GUMMERE, JJ.
J. W. De Yoe, for plaintiff.
Miller & Meyers and Luther Shafer, for defendant.
The borough of Woodcliff became incorporated about the 28th day of August, 1894, under the act for the formation of borough governments, approved April 5, 1878, and the several supplements thereto. It includes within its boundaries a portion of the township of Orvil, in the county of Bergen, and a portion of the township of Washington, in the same county. Prior to the time of the incorporation of the borough, the township of Orvil had become indebted in the sum of $30,000 for moneys expended in macadamizing a portion of the roads within its territory, and had issued bonds to secure the same. None of these roads, however, were in that part of the township which is now within the limits of the borough. At the time of the formation of the borough no legislation existed for apportioning to it its share of the assets and liabilities of the township. On April 16, 1896, however, a statute was passed, entitled "An act to provide for the division of the assets and liabilities of townships between such townships and any borough or boroughs set off from the same," the first section of which provided that, "where any borough has been heretofore or shall be hereafter set off from any township in this state, the township committee of such township, and the mayor and council of such borough shall have the power, and it shall be their duty, by agreement to make division between such borough and such township of all the property of such township, including moneys and assets on hand, and due or to become due to said township, and to make an equitable apportionment of the indebtedness and liabilities of such township." P. L. 1896, p. 270. Under the provisions of this act, proceedings were taken to make division of the assets and liabilities of the township of Orvil between it and the borough of Woodcliff, with the result that there was apportioned to the borough, as its share of the abovementioned indebtedness, the sum of $509.85; and, upon the refusal of the borough authorities to pay to the township the first installment of said amount when it fell due, this suit was brought for its collection.
The first ground upon which the borough resists the collection of the moneys claimed to be due from it to the township is that, as no legal liability rested upon it, when first it became incorporated, to pay any portion of the indebtedness which had previously been incurred by the township, no such liability could be subsequently imposed upon it by the legislature, and that the act of April 16, 1896, so far as it attempted to do so, was unconstitutional. Although this contention has the support of a number of adjudicated cases, of which Inhabitants of Hampshire v. Inhabitants of Franklin, 16 Mass. 76, and Bowdoinham v. Richmond, 6 Greenl. 112, are examples, it seems to me that it cannot be supported on principle, as "it is inconsistent with the necessary supremacy of the legislature over all its corporate and unincorporate bodies, divisions, and parts." 1 Dill. Mun. Corp. (4th Ed.) § 189. We are told that the constitutional provision which legislation of this kind violates is that which prohibits the passage of any law impairing the obligation of contracts, but it seems quite plain that this law is not objectionable for that reason. As was said by Mr. Justice Clifford in Laramie Co. Com'rs v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bonner v. Jackson
...supply legislative defects and omissions. 104 Ark. 583; 36 Cyc. 1113; Lewis' Sutherland, Stat. Constr. par. 411; 61 N.J.L. 107, 38 A. 685; 3 A. L. R. 398; 122 Ark. 491. The act is a patent Roy D. Campbell and Ross Mathis, for appellees. Rule for construction of statute, when challenged as u......
-
Property Owners Ass'n of North Bergen v. North Bergen Tp.
...But where the path is not clear, then the courts should refrain from usurping the legislative function. Orvil v. Woodcliff, 61 N.J.L. 107, 111-112, 38 A. 685 (Sup.Ct.1897); 2A Sutherland Statutory Construction § 47.38, at 172-173 (4th ed. North Bergen relies substantially on the New York Co......
-
Publix Asbury Corp. v. City of Asbury Park
...the power of judicial construction.' Saslow v. Previti, 3 A.2d 811, 813, 17 N.J.Misc. 29 (Cir.Ct.1939); Township of Orvil v. Borough of Woodcliff, 61 N.J.L. 107, 38 A. 685, (Sup.Ct.1897); 3 A.L.R. In accordance with the above rules I do hereby determine that the specific statute involved he......
-
Wagner v. County Employees Pension Comm'n Of Essex County.
...omission in the statute of the italicized words. If the words are added-and we add them-we neither legislate, (cf. Township of Orvil v. Woodcliff, 61 N.J.L. 107, 38 A. 685), nor supply ‘a casus omissus' (cf. Public Service Co-Ordinated Transport v. State Board of Tax Appeals, 115 N.J.L. 97,......