Jersey City v. Zink
| Decision Date | 26 April 1945 |
| Docket Number | No. 250.,250. |
| Citation | 42 A.2d 272,132 N.J.L. 601 |
| Parties | JERSEY CITY et al. v. ZINK, Comptroller, et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Consolidated mandamus proceedings by City of Jersey City and others against Homer C. Zink, Comptroller of the Treasury of New Jersey, and the Newark Board of Education.
Rule to show cause why writs of mandamus should not issue discharged.
January term, 1945, before CASE, BODINE and PORTER, JJ.
Charles Hershenstein, of Jersey City, Milton B. Conford, of Neward, and John F. Lynch, Jr. and Charles A. Rooney, both of Jersey City, for relators, Jersey City, Alfred J. Pakenham, Marie A. Pakenham and William A. Nolan.
John N. Platoff, of Union City, for relators, Weehawken Tp. and Harry C. Moore.
Samuel L. Hirschberg, of West New York, for relators, Town of West New York, Peter Dugan, and Frances Dugan.
John J. Fallon and O. J. Pellet, both of Hoboken, for relator, Mayor and Council of City of Hoboken.
Edward A. Smarak, of Union City, for relator, Town of Secaucus.
Walter D. VanRiper, Atty. Gen., Herbert J. Hannoch, of Newark, and Benjamin C. VanTine, of Trenton, for respondent, Comptroller of Treasury.
Jacob Fox, of Newark, for respondent, Board of Education of City of Newark.
This case comes before us on consolidated rules to show cause why writs of mandamus should not issue.
The questions at issue are broadly two: I. Will the writ go against a state officer? This depends upon the question of whether R.S. 54:24-11, et seq., N.J.S.A., still controls the distribution of moneys derived from railroad tax payments. II. Are Chapters 4, 5, 6 and 34 of Pamphlet Laws 1945 constitutional enactments?
The second question presented requires the determination of the constitutionality of those statutes. We are not completely in accord upon that question. The solution of the problem is very close and has been most carefully considered.
Under R.S. 2:83-15, N.J.S.A. 2:83-15, when a rule to show cause like in the present case is discharged as the legal consequence of a determination, as to the constitutionality of a statute, the relator may take an appeal to the Court of Errors and Appeals. The constitutionality of the statute is the main issue before us.
To facilitate the determination of that issue in the court of last resort, we make such determination and discharge the rules but without costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jersey City v. Zink
...been paid into State Treasury, to the municipalities in which such property was situated. From a judgment of the Supreme Court, 132 N.J.L. 601, 42 A.2d 272, the relators appeal. Reversed and remanded with direction. Syllabus by the Court. 1. Mandamus is the proper remedy to compel a State o......