Mckann v. Town Of Irvington, 11.
| Citation | 45 A.2d 494,133 N.J.L. 575 |
| Decision Date | 24 January 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. 11.,11. |
| Parties | McKANN v. TOWN OF IRVINGTON et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey) |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Certiorari proceeding by George C. McKann, Jr., against the Town of Irvington and others to review an order increasing salary of members of the police and fire departments. From a judgment dismissing the writ, 133 Misc. 63, 42 A.2d 391, George C. McKann, Jr., appeals.
Affirmed.
Irving Riker and Riker, Marsh & Scherer, all of Newark, for prosecutor-appellant.
John J. Gaffey and Herman W. Kurtz, both of Newark, for respondents Town of Irvington and Edward D. Balentine.
Charles E. McCraith, Jr., of Newark, for respondents Andrew Coleman and August Walters.
The judgment under review is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Colie in the Supreme Court, supplemented as follows:
The appellant concedes that Ordinance No. 1517, fixing salaries under R.S. 40:46-23, N.J.S.A., was not faulty in that it left a range within which a salary or wage might be moved without the formality of a further ordinance. The Supreme Court acquiesced in that view and, under the facts of the case, we concur. We note, however, that the range within which that movement is left to less formal determination than by ordinance is not so great as to emasculate the ordinance of its salary-fixing force. A salary ordinance must meet its statutory obligation of fixing salaries.
Further, we think that the holding in Chapman v. Edwards, 124 N.J.L. 192, 10 A.2d 735, is not relevant to the question of the effectiveness of matter which depends for its force upon being enacted as an ordinance but which has been omitted, except by reference, from the publication of the ordinance. There are circumstances, however, in which such an omission may occur without depriving the omitted matter of its character as an ordinance provision. Such an instance occurred in Burmore v. Smith, 124 N.J.L. 541, 12 A.2d 353, and such an instance exists in the present case where the matter omitted from publication, except by reference to its place of filing in a public office, was a mass of tables and classifications comprising 32 printed pages, much of it because of its tabular and columnar format ill-designed for newspaper insertion. Parts of an ordinance may not be freely or indiscriminately or usually omitted from the printing. The instances of lawful omission...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Abbotts Dairies, Inc. v. Armstrong
...which would be both minimum and maximum. Cf. McKann v. Irvington, 133 N.J.L. 63, 67, 42 A.2d 391 (Sup.Ct.1945), affirmed 133 N.J.L. 575, 45 A.2d 494 (E. & A.1946). Statutory language is to be given its ordinary meaning in the absence of specific intent to the contrary. See Board of National......
-
Nolan v. Witkowski
...standards to control the discretion of those who are to fix the salaries, does not comply with R.S. 40:46--23, N.J.S.A. McKann v. Town of Irvington, 133 N.J.L. 575, 576, 45 A.2d 494 (E. & A.1945), affirming 133 N.J.L. 63, 42 A.2d 391 (Sup.Ct.1945). For the same reason we must further state ......
-
Shalita v. Township of Washington
...20 N.J. 511, 517, 120 A.2d 449 (1956); Howard v. Mayor of Paterson, 6 N.J. 373, 378, 78 A.2d 893 (1951); McKann v. Town of Irvington, 133 N.J.L. 575, 576, 45 A.2d 494 (E. & A.1946); Grosso v. City of Paterson, 55 N.J.Super. 164, 168, 150 A.2d 94 (Law Div.1959), we hold that an ordinance det......
-
Holmes v. Republic Steel Corp.
...supreme court, 41 W.L.B. 237, and the New Jersey cases of McKann v. Town of Irvington, 133 N.J.L. 63, 66, 42 A.2d 391-393, affirmed 1945, 133 N.J.L. 575, 45 A.2d 494,Tice v. City of New Brunswick, 1906, 73 N.J.L. 615, 64 A. 108 and Warren v. Hudson County, 43 A.2d 785, 792, 23 N.J.Misc. 252......