Morgan v. Burnett
| Decision Date | 16 November 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 236.,236. |
| Citation | 2 A.2d 339,121 N.J.L. 352 |
| Parties | MORGAN v. BURNETT, State Com'r of Alcoholic Beverage Control, et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Certiorari proceeding by Edward J. Morgan against D. Frederick Burnett, State Commissioner of Alcoholic Beverage Control, and the Borough of Runnemede, to review an opinion of the Commissioner regarding the validity of a referendum on the question of whether the sale of alcoholic beverages should be permitted in the borough on Sundays after 1:00 p. m.
Writ dismissed.
Argued May term, 1938, before BROGAN, C. J, and BODINE and HEHER, JJ.
Harry Grossman, of Camden, for prosecutor.
Nathan L. Jacobs, of Newark, for defendant D. Frederick Burnett, State Com'r.
S. Lewis Davis, of Camden, for defendant Borough of Runnemede.
In 1934, at a referendum election held pursuant to section 44 of the act relating to alcoholic beverages, Pamph.L.1933, pp. 1180, 1211, Chapter 257, Pamph.L.1935, p. 818; RevStat.1937, 33:1-47, the electors of the Borough of Runnemede, in the County of Camden, resolved in the negative the question of whether the sale of alcoholic beverages should "be permitted on Sundays" in the municipality.
At a meeting held on September 30, 1937, the municipal governing body adopted a resolution directing the resubmission of that identical question to the voters of the municipality at the ensuing general election. The referendum was had accordingly; and the question was answered in the affirmative.
The resolution of resubmission was based upon a petition filed with the governing body under section 44 of the beverage control act, supra, signed by the requisite number of qualified electors, requesting a referendum on the question of whether the sale of alcoholic beverages should "be permitted on Sundays in the municipality after 1:00 P. M.;" and on December 27, 1937, the Commissioner of Alcoholic Beverage Control, in response to the borough clerk's request for his "opinion on the whole matter, that is in regard to the question submitted, and the legal hours of sales now in this Borough on Sunday," advised the clerk by letter that, in view of the failure of the governing body to submit the question demanded in the petition, the referendum was "void and of no effect," and therefore the "previous referendum," held in 1934, resulting in a prohibition of Sunday sales of alcoholic beverages, "has never been superseded," and "no sales of alcoholic beverages may be lawfully made at any time on Sundays in Runnemede."
The return shows that on Sunday, January 2, 1938, representatives of the defendant commissioner "explained" to prosecutor, the holder of a plenary retail consumption license issued by the local governing body, that "there was some controversy" relating to "the wording on the ballot concerning open Sunday and until the matter was definitely settled licensed premises should remain closed on Sunday as the licensee would be subject to revocation proceedings and might lose the license for the premises;" that the "licensee was responsible for the conduct of his premises and he would have to decide for himself if he wanted to be subject to revocation proceedings ;" and that prosecutor expressed his "desire to do what" the defendant-commissioner "desired," and informed them that he "would immediately close," and acted accordingly.
Prosecutor maintains that the referendum is not subject to collateral attack—citing State ex rel. Love v. Freeholders of Hudson County, 35 N.J.L. 269; O'Donnel v. Dusman, 39 N.J.L. 677; Conger v. Convery, 52 N.J.L. 417, 20 A. 166; Winters v. Warmolts, 70 N.J.L. 615, 56 A. 245; Long Branch v. Sloane, 49 N.J.L. 356, 8 A. 101; Treasurer of City of Camden v. Mulford, 26 N.J.L. 49, 58.
It is the insistence of the defendant commissioner, on the other hand, that the referendum "was void on its face," in that a petition for the submission of that particular question was a jurisdictional prerequisite, and the whole proceeding is therefore a nullity—citing App v. Stockton, 61 N.J.L. 520, 39 A. 921; Carron v. Martin, 26 N.J.L. 594, 69 Am.Dec. 584; State v. Mayor and Aldermen of Jersey City, 36 N.J.L. 188.
There is no occasion to consider this question. The return reveals no action reviewable on certiorari.
It is stipulated that, following...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Longo.
...194, 98 A. 312; Watson v. Medical Society of New Jersey, 38 N.J.L. 377; Newark v. Fordyce, 88 N.J.L. 440, 97 A. 67; Morgan v. Burnett, 121 N.J.L. 352, 2 A.2d 339; Vesey v. Driscoll, 132 N.J.L. 293, 297, 40 A.2d 291; Garden State Racing Association v. New Jersey Racing Commission, 134 N.J.L.......
-
New Jersey Civil Service Ass'n v. State
...132 N.J.L. 293, 40 A.2d 291 (S.Ct.1944) (no review of conclusions of ABC Commissioner that were not part of order); Morgan v. Burnett, 121 N.J.L. 352, 2 A.2d 339 (S.Ct.1938) (no review of opinion of ABC Commissioner that did not constitute administrative Certainly the Attorney General's Opi......
-
Sayre & Fisher Brick Co. v. Dearden
...therefore, are not reviewable.' In delivering the opinion of the court, Judge Eastwood referred to the case of Morgan v. Burnett, 121 N.J.L. 352, 2 A.2d 339 (Sup.Ct.1938) and 'Rule 3:81--8, as amended, provides that a 'Review of the final decision or action of any State Administrative Agenc......
- St. John the Baptist Greek Catholic Church of Perth Amboy v. Gengor