State v. Inhabitants of City of Trenton
Decision Date | 26 January 1895 |
Citation | 31 A. 223,57 N.J.L. 318 |
Parties | STATE (INHABITANTS OF EWING TP., Prosecutor) v. INHABITANTS OF CITY OF TRENTON. |
Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court)
Certiorari by the state, on the prosecution of the inhabitants of the township of Ewing, against the inhabitants of the city of Trenton.
This writ brings up the action of the common council of the city of Trenton, directing the city assessors to assess all property in a part of Ewing township annexed to said city by the terms of an act entitled "An act to annex to the city of Trenton in the county of Mercer, certain parts of the township of Ewing, in said county." Pamph. Laws 1804, p. 595. Assessments set aside.
Argued November term, 1894, before GARRISON and REED, JJ.
Howell & Bro., for township of Ewing.
John Relstab, for city of Trenton.
The legality of the municipal action attacked rests upon the validity of the statute of 1894, purporting to annex a portion of the territory theretofore within the township of Ewing to the city of Trenton. The act is special. Assuming that the boundaries of municipal corporations can be changed by special legislation, the counsel for the prosecutor challenges this act as one passed in contravention of the provisions of the constitution. The ground taken is that the notice of the intended enactment was not given in conformity with article 4, § 7, par. 9, of the amended state constitution. This paragraph of that instrument provides that The legislature prescribed, by the act of 1870 (Revision, p. 1125, § 37), for the giving and recording of such notices in all cases in which notices were required by the constitution. By an act (Pamph. Laws 1894, p. 595), the manner of publication of notices of acts for the annexation or consideration of any town or township to and with any city or other municipality was prescribed. The requirement of this act is that the notice shall be published in a daily newspaper published in the municipality with which such town or township is proposed to be annexed or consolidated, for at least We days prior to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. State
...23 Mo. 353; State v. Swift, 10 Nev. 176; State v. Howell, 26 Nev. 93, 64 P. 466; Pangborn et al. v. Young, 32 N.J.L. 29; Ewing v. Trenton, 57 N.J.L. 318, 31 A. 223; People v. Devlin, 33 N.Y. 269; People v. Marlborough Highway Comm., 54 N.Y. 276; Brodnax et al. v. Groom et al., 64 N.C. 244; ......
-
Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. State
...Swift, 10 Nev. 186, 21 Am. Rep. 721; State v. Howell, 26 Nev. 93, 64 P. 466; Pangborn et al. v. Young, 32 N. J. Law, 29; Ewing v. Trenton, 57 N. J. Law, 318, 31 A. 223; People v. Devlin, 33 N.Y. 269, 88 Am. Dec. 377; People v. Marlborough Highway Com'rs, 54 N.Y. 276, 13 Am. Rep. 581; Brodna......
-
Natchez, C. & M. R. Co. v. Boyd
... ... 1015; Clough v. Power ... Co., 31 A. 223; F. W. Geiss v. Twin City ... Taxicab Co., 15 L. R. A. 382 ... The ... doctrine, ... ...
-
Bridgewater Tp. v. Bor. Of Raritan.
...In Township Committee of Lakewood v. Township Committee of Brick, Sup.1893, 55 N.J.L. 275, 26 A. 91; Ewing Tp. v. Inhabitants of City of Trenton, Sup.1894, 57 N.J.L. 318, 31 A. 223; and Miller v. Greenwalt, 64 N.J.L. 197, 44 A. 880, affirmed O.B., Err. & App. 1900, 64 N.J.L. 722, 46 A. 1100......