Rippel v. City of Asbury Park, 223.

Citation190 A. 489
Decision Date02 March 1937
Docket NumberNo. 223.,223.
PartiesRIPPEL et al. v. CITY OF ASBURY PARK et al.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)

Proceeding by Julius S. Rippel and others, members of the Protective Committee for Security Holders of the City of Asbury Park, for a peremptory writ of mandamus to such city and certain officers thereof, in which the Municipal Finance Commission and others were made parties and the Commission filed a petition for mandamus. On rule to show cause why a peremptory writ should not issue.

Peremptory writ granted on the Commission's petition.

Argued January term, 1937, before TRENCHARD, BODINE, and HEHER, JJ.

McDermott, Enright & Carpenter, of Jersey City (James D. Carpenter, Jr., of Jersey City, of counsel), for petitioners and Adams & Mueller, interveners.

William A. Stevens, of Red Bank (E. J. Dimock, Arnold Frye, and B. L. Visscher, all of New York City, of counsel), for Municipal Finance Commission of New Jersey.

Ward Kremer, of Asbury Park, and Harry Cassman, of Atlantic City, for defendant City of Asbury Park.

HEHER, Justice.

Since March 7, 1935, the municipal finance commission, created by chapter 340 of the Laws of 1931 (Pamph.L. p. 830), as amended (N.J.St.Annuals 1931-1936, § *136—4700 (101) et seq.), has, in virtue of an appropriate order, exercised its statutory function in relation to the business and affairs of the defendant municipality, city of Asbury Park.

The petitioners represent the holders of unpaid matured bonds and notes aggregating in excess of the principal sum of $1,500,000. Their claims so arising have not been reduced to judgment. They are all residents of this state. They seek a peremptory writ of mandamus commanding the defendant municipality and its proper officers to make an "assessment, levy, and collection of a sum sufficient to pay all interest owing by the City at the contract rate, in arrears, less the amounts appropriated in past budgets, and which will accrue through 1936, or in the alternative at least $700,000, to be applied on account of the principal and interest of the obligations" of the municipality "for the year 1936, and for an annual levy, assessment, and collection of taxes by" it "for the equal and ratable payment of installments of principal and interest" among its creditors, "in an amount sufficient to discharge in such time as may be fixed by the Court the debt of such City." The petition was filed on January 4, 1936, pursuant to an order entered herein on notice to the finance commission, under section 352 of the cited statute, as amended by chapter 50 of the Laws of 1936 (Pamph.L. p. 134, § 2, N. J.St. Annual 1936, § * 136—4700 (352), authorizing petitioners to institute, for the benefit of all creditors, mandamus proceedings to compel the levy of taxes necessary for the enforcement of their claims. The instant rule, directing the defendant municipality and certain of its officers to show cause why the writ should not issue, was allowed on the same day, but was not brought on for argument until the current term. It contained a provision making the finance commission and all other creditors of the municipality parties to the proceeding.

On December 14, 1936, the finance commission, in accordance with the authority conferred by section 201 of the statute, as amended by chapter 192 of the Laws of 1935 (Pamph.L. p. 467, N.J.St.Annual 1935, § *136—4700 (201), formulated and certified to the governing body of the municipality resolutions providing for the refunding of the indebtedness in question by the issue of bonds under a plan calling for a debt service levy in the year 1937, and each year thereafter, sufficient to render an actual annual yield of $630,000, but adoption of the plan by the municipality has not yet been had.

On December 29, 1936, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, in an action brought by the nonresident bondholders, granted a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel an annual tax levy, supplementing "regular" taxes, in the sum of $87,381, the nonresident security holders' proportionate share of the yearly debt service levy thus proposed by the finance commission. Thereafter, the commission filed a petition herein setting forth these facts and praying for a mandamus directing the municipality to make an additional...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co. v. City of Camden
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • May 5, 1937
    ...well as the inhabitants of a municipality. See Hourigan v. Township of North Bergen, 113 N.J.Law, 143, 172 A. 193, 785; Rippel v. Asbury Park, 118 N.J.Law, 45, 190 A. 489. They are grounded in a sound economy. The evils consequent upon improvidence in municipal management have been brought ......
  • Schierstead v. City of Brigantine
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • February 16, 1959
    ...decisions. See Hourigan v. North Bergen Township, 113 N.J.L. 143, 149, 172 A. 193, 785 (E. & A. 1934); Rippel v. City of Asbury Park, 118 N.J.L. 45, 190 A. 489 (Sup.Ct.1937); Shay v. Delaware Township, 122 N.J.L. 313, 5 A.2d 53 (Sup.Ct.1939), affirmed, 124 N.J.L. 124, 11 A.2d 261 (E. & A. 1......
  • Christmas v. City of Asbury Park
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • November 27, 1943
    ...an additional levy for their benefit which was issued and all of the bondholders thus arrived on the same level. Rippel v. City of Asbury Park, 118 N.J.L. 45, 190 A. 489. The respondents under the writ issuing out of this court did not obey it and an application was made to hold them in con......
  • Schierstead v. City of Brigantine
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • December 19, 1955
    ...the corporate structure and to continue municipal functions until rehabilitation coudl be afforded. And in Rippel v. City of Asbury Park, 118 N.J.L. 45, 190 A. 489 (Sup.Ct.1937), the court again pointed out that the statutory scheme of the act in question was to secure, through the agency o......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT