Lowthorp v. Inhabitants of City of Trenton

• Decision Date: 17 November 1899
• Citation: 62 N.J.L. 795,44 A. 755
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
• Parties: LOWTHORP v. INHABITANTS OF CITY OF TRENTON.

44 A. 755

62 N.J.L. 795

LOWTHORP

v. INHABITANTS OF CITY OF TRENTON.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Nov. 17, 1899.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error to supreme court,

Certiorari by the state on the prosecution of Francis C. Lowthorp against the inhabitants of the city of Trenton to review a resolution of the common council. Proceedings set aside, and defendants bring error. Affirmed.

John Rellstab and George W. Macpherson, for plaintiffs in error.

John H. Backes, for defendant in error.

GUMMERE, J. The legislature of this state by a statute approved March 5, 1896, entitled "An act concerning cities of the second class in this state, and providing for the purchase of lands, and the construction and the repair of buildings for high school purposes in such cities," enacted that whenever the board of education or other body having charge of the public schools in any city of the designated class should, by resolution, determine "that the property or buildings devoted to high school purposes in such city were improperly located, or such buildings were unsanitary, inadequate, or otherwise unsuitable for high school purposes," it should be lawful for the governing body of such city to appropriate such sum of money, not exceeding $180,000, as they, in their discretion, should determine, for the purchase of lands and the erection of buildings, or for the repair and improvement of buildings used or to be used for high-school purposes. The statute was given effect immediately upon its passage and approval by the executive, but was to remain inoperative in any of the specified cities until assented to by a majority of the legal voters thereof voting at an annual charter election. On April 14, 1896, this statute was submitted to the voters of the city of Trenton, in the method provided therein, for their assent, at an annual election held upon that day. It will be assumed for the purpose of deciding this case (although the fact is contested) that at such election the act was assented to by a majority of the legal voters of the city. Afterwards the commissioners of public instruction of that city passed a resolution "that the school buildings and grounds on Mercer street devoted to high-school purposes are inadequate and unsuitable for such purposes," and then resolved that the sum of $150,000 be appropriated for the purchase of lands and the erection of buildings thereon to be used for high-school purposes; out of which amount they determined by a subsequent resolution to purchase a tract of land located in said city for the purpose of erecting a high school thereon. The legality of those municipal proceedings is challenged by the defendant in error, and whether or not they can be sustained depends upon the validity of the statute under which they were had. That statute was declared by the supreme court to be void for two reasons: First, because it was forbidden by the constitutional provision which prohibits the passage of any special or local law regulating the internal affairs of towns; second, because it was also violative of the provision of that instrument interdicting the passage of such laws providing for the management...