Inhabitants of the Township of Montclair, County of Essex v. Ramsdell
Citation | 2 S.Ct. 391,107 U.S. 147,27 L.Ed. 431 |
Parties | INHABITANTS OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MONTCLAIR, COUNTY OF ESSEX v. RAMSDELL |
Decision Date | 05 March 1883 |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
The judgment below was in accordance with the verdict in an action brought by the defendant in error on certain bonds, payable to Samuel Holmes or bearer, and coupons thereof payable to the holder, all dated March 17, 1870, and alleged to have been issued by the township of Montclair, Essex county, New Jersey. They are negotiable in form and purport to have been executed in pursuance of an act approved April 9, 1868, entitled 'An act to authorize certain townships, towns, and cities to issue bonds, and to take the bonds of the Montclair Railway Company'—a corporation created with authority to construct a railway from the village of Montclair to the Hudson river at Pavonia or Hoboken ferries or between those points. On the margin of each bond is the certificate of the county clerk of Essex county that it is registered in his office.
The first section of the foregoing act—which was declared to be a public act to take effect immediately upon its passage provides:
The second and third sections are as follows:
After providing that the commissioners shall execute their official bonds, with security to be approved by the judge, (all of which was done in this case,) and that they shall be a board to act for their respective townships, towns, and cities, with power, by a majority, to do any business authorized by the act, the twelfth and fourteenth sections declare:
'Sec. 12. That all bonds issued in accordance with the provisions of this act shall be registered in the office of the county in which the township, town, or city so issuing is situated, and the words 'registered in the county clerk's office' shall be printed or written across the face of each bond, attested by the signature of the county clerk when so registered, and no bonds shall be valid unless so registered.
On the fifteenth day of April, 1868, the legislature of New Jersey passed another act, the provisions of which are important. It is entitled 'An act to set off from the township of Bloomfield, in the county of Essex, a new township, to be called the township of Montclair.' The first section defines the boundary of the new township, and the second constitutes its inhabitants a body politic and corporate in law by the name of The inhabitants of the township of Montclair,' with all the rights, powers, privileges, and advantages, and subject to all the regulations, government, and liabilities to which the inhabitants of the other townships in said county of Essex are or may be entitled or subject by the laws of the state.
The third section, after prescribing the time and place at which the first town-meeting of Montclair should be held, and that the voting thereat should be by ballot until otherwise determined by law, declares:
'That all the provisions and restrictions of an act entitled 'An act to authorize the inhabitants of the several townships of this state to vote by ballot at their town meetings,' approved March 22, 1860, and of the supplements thereto, shall apply to the inhabitants of the said township of Montclair, and all acts and parts of acts in force in the said township of Bloomfield at the time of the passage of this act are hereby extended to and shall be in force in the said township of Montclair; but the provisions of any act or acts from the operation of which the township of Bloomfield has, by any proviso or exception contained therein been specially excepted, shall apply to and be in force in said township of Montclair from and after the time this act shall go into effect, the same as if the township of Bloomfield had not been specially excepted therein.'
Thos. N. McCarter and Wm. M. Evarts, for plaintiff in error.
Rastus S. Ransom and Jno. F. Dillon, for defendant in error.
In behalf of the township of Montclair it is contended that the bonds and coupons in suit were executed and issued without legislative authority, and consequently are not enforceable. This proposition being fundamental in the case will be first considered.
It has been observed that the first section of the act of April 9, 1868—the one referred to in the bonds—expressly excepts from its operation the township of Bloomfield. The circuit court was of opinion, and so ruled, that Montclair, upon being set off from Bloomfield township and made a separate municipal corporation, with all the rights, powers, and privileges of other townships in the same county, was no longer embraced in the exception of Bloomfield township made by the act of April 9, 1868, but, as a distinct independent body politic and corporate, became entitled, in virtue of the fourteenth section of that act, (and without reference to the proviso in the third section of the act of April 15, 1868,) to take advantage of all the provisions of the original or bonding act. Some of the members of this court prefer not to rest the determination of the question of legislative authority upon that interpretation of the original act. But we are of opinion that the proviso of the third section of the act creating the township of Montclair—declaring in force, as to that township, 'the provisions of any act or acts from the operation of which the township of Bloomfield has by any proviso or exception contained therein been specially excepted'...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Labarbera v. NYU Winthrop Hosp.
...and the PDA's inclusion of both "ability" and "inability" should be read to avoid redundancies. Inhabitants of Montclair Tp. v. Ramsdell , 107 U.S. 147, 152, 2 S.Ct. 391, 27 L.Ed. 431 (1883) ("It is the duty of the court to give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute, av......
-
I IS Ljo State v. County Court Op Wirt County.
...it prevent including in the same act numerous provisions having one general object, fairly indicated by the title. Montclair v. Ramsdell, 107 U. S. 147 (2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 391). Under the general title of this act everything could be included necessary to insure the existence, attain the objec......
-
In re Application of Crane
... ... chapter is of general application to every county in the ... state alike; and with the electors of ... St. 201, 68 P. 295; Montclair Township v. Ramsdell , ... 107 U.S. 147, 2 S.Ct ... ...
-
In re Ikalowych
...a statute." U.S. v. Menasche , 348 U.S. 528, 538-39, 75 S.Ct. 513, 99 L.Ed. 615 (1955) (quoting Inhabitants of Montclair Tp. v. Ramsdell , 107 U.S. 147, 152, 2 S.Ct. 391, 27 L.Ed. 431 (1883) ); Lowe v. SEC , 472 U.S. 181, 207 n.53, 105 S.Ct. 2557, 86 L.Ed.2d 130 (1985) ("[W]e must give effe......
-
CONGRESSIONAL RULES OF INTERPRETATION.
...and the Federalism Cases: An Interdisciplinary Critique, 111 YALE L.J. 1707, 1745 (2002). (220.) See, e.g., Montclair v. Ramsdell, 107 U.S. 147, 152 (1883) (stating that the goal of the whole act rule is to "give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a (221.) Samantar v. Yousuf, ......
-
The government's power to bring transnational securities fraudsters to account: dodd-frank rendered Morrison irrelevant
...(quoting United States v. Menasche, 348 U.S. 528, 538–39 (1955)). 233. Menasche , 348 U.S. at 538–39 (quoting Montclair v. Ramsdell, 107 U.S. 147, 152 (1883)); see also Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Cmtys. for a Great Or., 515 U.S. 687, 698 (1995) (articulating the Court’s 278 AMERICAN C......
-
Dueling Grants: Reimagining Cafa's Jurisdictional Provisions
...another part of the same statute superfluous.").229. U.S. v. Alaska, 521 U.S. 1, 59 (1997); Inhabitants of Montclair Twp. v. Ramsdell, 107 U.S. 147, 152 (1883); see also Avritt, 2009 WL 1703224, at *2 (D. Minn. June 18, 2009) (citing U.S. v. Stanko, 491 F.3d 408, 413 (8th Cir. 2007)). On th......
-
Guiding the sentencing court's discretion: a proposed definition of the phrase "non-violent offense" under United States Sentencing Guidelines s. 5K2.13.
...348 U.S. 528, 538-39 (1955) (stating that each word of a statute shall be given meaning); see also Inhabitants of Montclair v. Ramsdell, 107 U.S. 147, 152 (1883). (119) See Menasche, 348 U.S. at 538-39. (120) See National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1......