P, T & L Const. Co. v. Commissioner, Dept. of Transp.
Decision Date | 02 March 1970 |
Citation | 55 N.J. 341,262 A.2d 195 |
Parties | P, T & L CONSTRUCTION CO., a corporation of the State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, State of New Jersey, Defendant-Respondent. |
Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Theodore W. Geiser, Newark, for appellant (Pindar, McElroy, Connell, Foley & Geiser, Newark, attorneys).
Stephen Skillman, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent (Arthur J. Sills, Atty. Gen., attorney).
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Plaintiff sues the State on a written contract for public construction. The meritorious issue is whether plaintiff is entitled to the balance of $110,360.64 which the State withheld as damages for alleged delay in completion of the job. The merits were never reached because the trial court sustained the State's defense of immunity from suit. We certified plaintiff's appeal before argument in the Appellate Division.
The Legislature has expressly dealt with this specific claim. After judgment went against it in the present case, plaintiff presented the claim to a subcommittee of the Joint Legislative Appropriations Committee. The subcommittee found for plaintiff in full, and the award was included in a supplemental appropriations bill (S. 813 (1969)). The Governor however vetoed that item, saying (message of June 27, 1969):
After restating specific recommendations he had theretofore made with respect to proceedings before a claims committee, the Governor said:
He added his willingness to support, with a few minor changes, a pending bill (A. 821) which would have committed such controversies to the judiciary.
Having thus failed, plaintiff continues to press the present action. Plaintiff agrees that Strobel Steel Construction Co. v. State Highway Commission, 120 N.J.L. 298, 198 A. 774 (E. & A.1938), stands in the way, but says, and we think correctly, that it should be overruled.
Strobel also involved a construction contract for a public improvement. The court applied a flat rule that the State could not be sued without its consent. Plaintiff there conceded such a rule, but sought, unsuccessfully, to infer a statutory consent to be sued (pp. 301--302, 198 A. 774).
Strobel overstated the rule of immunity, for sundry actions had succeeded against the State. See East Orange v. Palmer, 47 N.J. 307, 328--329, 220 A.2d 679 (1966). Strobel did not discuss the thesis of Haycock v. Jannarone, 99 N.J.L. 183, 122 A. 805 (E. & A.1923). That was a suit for trespass brought by the owner of real property against a construction contractor. The contractor denied encroaching on plaintiff's property but asserted that if there were an encroachment, he nonetheless was performing a contract with the State Highway Commission which had the right to enter under its power to condemn. This defense was sustained. The court pointed out that under a statute the State Highway Commission could take possession before condemnation and said that if in fact there was a taking, plaintiff could Mandamus the highway commission to institute condemnation proceedings. But the question remained as to how a money judgment could be collected under those circumstances. As to this, the court said (p. 185, 122 A. 806):
The point of immediate significance is that Haycock expressed a willingness to find and declare the State's dollar liability even if no moneys had been appropriated and payment would depend upon the Legislature's acquiescence. So also in Amantia v. Cantwell, 89 N.J.Super. 7, 213 A.2d 251 (App.Div.1965), the court declared the claimants' entitlement to a pay differential under a statute notwithstanding that 'Whether or not petitioners receive the money to which they are clearly entitled rests exclusively with the Legislature' (at p. 13, 213 A.2d at 254).
That a constitutional guarantee was involved in Haycock or a statute in Amantia cannot be the decisive fact, for whatever the basis of the asserted claim, the critical question must be whether the judiciary should declare the dollar obligation of the State even though payment will depend upon whether the Legislature will abide by the court's judgment and pay it. In Fitzgerald v. Palmer, 47 N.J. 106, 219 A.2d 512 (1966), we declined to say whether the courts should entertain negligence actions against the State. We did not put the issue in terms of the power of the judicial branch to decide for the State what in justice it should do. Rather we said that since payment of such judgments would depend upon the willingness of the other branches to provide for it, the critical question was whether the judiciary should exert its power in advance of some indication that the other branches of government would abide by the judgment:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
P.T. & L. Const. Co., Inc. v. State of N.J., Dept. of Transp.
... ... The cost overruns incurred with respect to the former were included in the $661,200; the latter amount was $32,032 ... 7 P.T. & L. was, apparently, the party-plaintiff in the seminal decision of P.T. & L. Construction Co. v. Commissioner, Dept. of Transportation, 55 N.J. 341, 346, 262 A.2d 195 (1970), which imposed contractual liability on the State "even though satisfaction of a favorable judgment would depend wholly on the willingness of the Legislature to honor the judgment and provide for payment." Subsequently, the ... ...
-
Small v. Rockfeld
... ... 230, 234--235, 238 A.2d 685 (1968); P, T & L Const. Co. v. Comm'r Dept. of Trans., 55 N.J. 341, 262 A.2d 195 (1970); and ... ...
-
County of Morris v. Fauver
... ... William FAUVER, Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of ... Corrections, the New Jersey ... Frapaul Constr. Co. v. New Jersey Dep't of Transp., 175 N.J.Super. 84, 88, 417 A.2d 592 (App.Div.1980); Richard J. Hughes & ... ...
-
Foldi v. Jeffries
... ... A.P.A. Transp. Corp., 56 N.J. 500, 267 A.2d 490 (1970), and Small v. Rockfeld, 66 N.J ... & L. Constr. Co. v. Commissioner, Dep't. of Transp., 55 N.J. 341, 262 A.2d 195 (1970) ... Page 545 ... ...