Morris May Realty Corp. v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Monmouth County
| Decision Date | 25 April 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. A--128,A--128 |
| Citation | 18 N.J. 269,113 A.2d 649 |
| Parties | MORRIS MAY REALTY CORP., a corporation of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. The BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF the COUNTY OF MONMOUTH, a body politic functioning within said County and State of New Jersey, and Joseph C. Irwin, Victor Grossinger, Walter Sherman, Abraham D. Voorhees and Earl Woolley, Defendants-Appellants. (consolidated with) COUNTY OF MONMOUTH, a municipal corporation of the State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MORRIS MAY REALTY CORP., a corporation of the State of New Jersey, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Lawrence A. Carton, Jr., Atlantic Highlands, argued the cause for appellants (Roberts, Pillsbury & Carton, Atlantic Highlands, attorneys).
Harry Green, Little Silver, argued the cause for respondent.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
In 1923 the County of Monmouth constructed a concrete roadway across lands of the New York and Long Branch Railroad in the Borough of Little Silver under a written agreement providing for vacation and surrender of the property by the county on 60 days' notice. Morris May Realty Corp. acquired the lands from the railroad in 1952 and on May 7, 1952 gave the county notice to vacate. The county did not surrender the lands; instead its board of freeholders on July 2, 1952, within the 60-day notice period, adopted a resolution to condemn the property for a public highway. In March 1954 the realty company filed a specific performance action in the Superior Court, Chancery Division, and also sought damages from the board and its members. In October 1954 the county started its condemnation action in the Superior Court, Law Division. Thereupon the realty company, on motion, obtained an interlocutory order in the Chancery Division consolidating the two actions for trial in that Division and directing the determination there of all issues, including damages, without a jury. A counter-motion of the county for dismissal of the Chancery action for lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter was denied. 33 N.J.Super. 93, 109 A.2d 468 (Ch.Div.1954). The county appealed to the Appellate Division under R.R. 2:2--3(a)(3) allowing appeals from interlocutory orders determining that the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter or person. We certified the appeal here of our own motion. R.R. 1:10--1.
The resolution of July 2, 1952 taking the road was adopted on the authority of R.S. 27:16--42 since amended by L.1953, c. 27, p. 493, N.J.S.A., effective March 19, 1953. The statute provides that the board, upon exercising such right and entering upon and taking the property in advance of making compensation therefor, shall institute an action to fix the compensation as provided by the Eminent Domain Act, R.S. 20:1--1 et seq., since amended by L.1953, c. 20, p. 365, N.J.S.A. The statute further provides that the board of freeholders 'may enter upon and take property * * * in advance of making compensation therefor, in any case where it cannot acquire the property by agreement with the owner.' R.S. 27:16--48 N.J.S.A. There was a suggestion, on the oral argument, that the delay in filing the action was caused by unsuccessful efforts to negotiate the acquisition of the land by agreement with the realty company. The complaint, as required by R.S. 20:1--2, N.J.S.A., sought the appointment of three commissioners to fix the compensation for the property, and Assignment Judge Frank T. Lloyd, Jr., allowed an order to show cause why judgment appointing commissioners should not be rendered.
The county grounds its attack upon the Chancery Division's jurisdiction of the subject matter upon its view of the interpretation to be given the Eminent Domain Act, invoking the settled principle that the provision of the manner and method by which the power of eminent domain shall be exercised is essentially a legislative and not a judicial function. Bergen County Sewer Authority v. Borough of Little Ferry, 5 N.J. 548, 552, 76 A.2d 680 (1950); Borough of Little Ferry v. Bergen County Sewer Authority, 9 N.J. 536, 89 A.2d 18 (1952), certiorari denied 344 U.S. 865, 73 S.Ct. 105, 97 L.Ed. 670 (1952).
It is contended first that, by force of the statute, exclusive jurisdiction of the action in condemnation attached in Judge Lloyd as statutory agent exercising a delegated authority and that Judge Lloyd could not be divested of that function by the order of another judge or division of the court. That argument has no merit in light of the 1953 amendments of R.S. 20:1--2 of the Eminent Domain Act, N.J.S.A. Formerly that section read in such wise that the appointments of commissioners were made by the judges as legislative agents merely and no function of the court was involved; the proceeding was commenced by petition filed with a Superior Court judge, who succeeded in that regard to the function of the justices of the former Supreme Court and the judges of the former Circuit Court. Bergen County Sewer Authority v. Borough of Little Ferry, supra. But by the 1953 amendments the Legislature relieved the Superior Court judges of the duty of functioning individually as statutory agents and placed condemnation actions in the category of judicial actions within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court. This was done by the amendment of R.S. 20:1--2, N.J.S.A., effective July 1, 1953, which requires the institution of a condemnation proceeding by 'an action in the Superior Court'.
No division of the court is specified in the amended statute. It follows that both the Law Division and the Chancery Division may exercise the conferred jurisdiction. Ordinarily the action should be processed in the Law Division but in a proper case an action may be consolidated, as here, with an action pending in the Chancery Division. The test is whether the requirements of R.R. 4:43 governing consolidation of actions are met. Each division,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Port of New York Authority v. Heming, A--44
...42 L.Ed. 853 (1898); United States v. Jones, 109 U.S. 513, 3 S.Ct. 346, 27 L.Ed. 1015 (1883); Morris May Realty Corp. v. Board, etc., County of Monmouth, 18 N.J. 269, 275, 113 A.2d 649 (1955); Marin Municipal Water Dist. v. Marin Water & Power Co., 178 Cal. 308, 173 P. 469 (Sup.Ct.1918); Ja......
-
New Jersey Highway Authority v. Currie, A--184
...is an action in the Superior Court, subject to the procedural provisions of the rules of court, Morris May Realty Corp. v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, etc., 18 N.J. 269, 113 A.2d 649. In due course plaintiff gave notice of motion for summary judgment, relying upon an affidavit by Oliver A.......
-
Associated Metals & Minerals Corp. v. Dixon Chemical & Research, Inc.
...May Realty Corp. v. Monmouth Board of Freeholders, 33 N.J.Super. 93, 109 A.2d 468 (Ch.Div.1954), modified on other grounds, 18 N.J. 269, 113 A.2d 649 (1955); Garrou v. Teaneck Tryon Co., 11 N.J. 294, 300--301, 94 A.2d 332, 35 A.L.R.2d 1125 (1953); and, generally, Schnitzer and Wildstein, Ne......
-
New Jersey Turnpike Authority v. Jersey City
...to the landowner. See State v. Fisher, 54 N.J.Super. 274, 281, 148 A.2d 735 (App.Div.1959); cf. Morris May Realty Corp. v. Bd., etc., County of Monmouth, 18 N.J. 269, 277, 113 A.2d 649 (1955); Abbott v. Beth Israel Cemetery Ass'n of Woodbridge, 13 N.J. 528, 543, 100 A.2d 532 (1953). But our......