Nesbitt v. Bd. of Managers of N.J. Agricultural Experiment Station

• Decision Date: 10 December 1931
• Citation: 157 A. 551
• Parties: NESBITT v. BOARD OF MANAGERS OF NEW JERSEY AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

157 A. 551

NESBITT

v. BOARD OF MANAGERS OF NEW JERSEY AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Dec. 10, 1931.

Action by Albert J. Nesbitt against the Board of Managers of the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station. On motion to dismiss complaint Motion granted.

Norman Barker, of Mt. Holly, for plaintiff.

Robert Peacock, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant.

ELDREDGE, Circuit Court Judge.

The plaintiff in this case brought suit against the defendant the board of managers of the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, alleging that on October 5, 1926, the defendant, by its servants, agents, and employees, operated an automobile in a negligent manner and caused injury to the plaintiff, for which injury he seeks to recover.

The act of 1880 (P. L. 1880, p. 137 [1 Comp. St. 1910, pp. 28, 29, §§ 72-77]), creating the board of managers of the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, provides that the said station shall be established for the benefit of practical and scientific agriculture and the development of unimproved lands. The direction of the institution was committed to the board of directors consisting of the Governor, the board of visitors of the State Agricultural College, and the president and professor of agriculture of that institution. The board of directors had authority to appoint a director to have general management and oversight of the experiments and investigations necessary to carry out the objects of the institution and also to employ competent chemists and other assistants to analyze soils, fertilizer, and objects of agricultural interest. By a later act of the Legislature, the board of directors were designated as a board of managers. By an amendment passed in 1887 (P. L. 1887, p. 24 [1 Comp. St. 1910, pp. 29, 30, §§ 81, 82]), the Legislature of the state of New Jersey accepted and assented to appropriations and grants of money as made and provided for in an Act of the Congress of the United "States, approved March 3, 1887, entitled, "An act to establish agricultural experiment stations in connection with the colleges established in the several states under the provisions of an act approved July second, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, and of the acts supplementary thereto"; and by a further act passed in 1920, P. L. p. 394, and amended in 1923, P. L. p. 45, Comp. St Supp. §§ 4—86(g)3, 4—86(g)4, the board of managers is empowered to provide for instruction in poultry raising and to that end to conduct poultry exhibitions and to charge admission thereto and to pay the expense thereof. This act provides that any excess of income over expenses for any particular show shall be held and used to defray the expenses of subsequent poultry exhibitions. Neither the original act nor the amendments thereof anywhere provide that the board of managers (have the right to sue or be sued.

A motion is now made by the defendant to dismiss the complaint upon the ground that a suit cannot be maintained against the state of New Jersey, that the defendant is a state agency, and hence a suit against it would be a suit against the state.

In the judgment of the court, this motion must prevail. That the state of New Jersey cannot be sued without its consent has been long established in this state.

In the case of Lodor v. Baker, Arnold & Co., 39 N. J. Law, 49, the court, speaking through Justice Van Syckle, said: "With regard to state courts, it requires no constitutional provision to shield the state from suits by its own citizens, or by the citizens of...