State v. Mayor

• Decision Date: 02 June 1809
• Citation: 62 N.J.L. 621,43 A. 578
• Parties: STATE (DAY, Prosecutor) v. MAYOR, ETC., OF BOROUGH OF FAIRVIEW, BERGEN COUNTY, et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

43 A. 578

62 N.J.L. 621

STATE (DAY, Prosecutor)

v. MAYOR, ETC., OF BOROUGH OF FAIRVIEW, BERGEN COUNTY, et al.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

June 2, 1809.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Certiorari by the state, on the prosecution of James Day, against the mayor and council of the borough of Fairview and the clerk of said borough, to review application to extend and grade a public way. Writ dismissed.

Argued June term, 1898, before LIPPINCOTT and GUMMERE, JJ.

Wallis, Edwards & Bumsted, for prosecutor.

Corbin & Corbin, for defendants.

LIPPINCOTT, J. This is a certiorari to review an application to extend, lay out, open, and grade a public roadway to be known as "Anderson Avenue," from the northerly line or terminus of Bergenline avenue, at Grand View, in the borough of Fairview, to a line or point on the division line of, and between, the properties of the estate of Adolph Rusch, deceased, and Hermann Walker, in said borough, and the proceedings taken thereunder. The application is made and these proceedings are taken by virtue of the provisions of an act entitled "A further supplement to an act entitled 'An act for the formation of borough governments,'" approved April 5, 1878, which supplement was approved March 23, 1888 (P. L. 1888, p. 226). The first section of this supplement provides that, before any such improvements are undertaken, the application therefor shall be presented in writing, describing the volume and extent of the work or improvement desired, "signed by the owners of one-quarter of the lineal feet of land fronting on the street, avenue, road, or highway so proposed to be opened, laid out, extended, altered, widened, straightened, vacated, graded, paved, graveled, macadamized, or otherwise improved." The sole objection of the prosecutor is that the application was not signed by the owners of lands of the requisite lineal feet fronting upon this street. It appears from the evidence that the Church of the Sacred Heart, a religious corporation of this state, is the owner of 200 lineal feet fronting on the street to be improved, and that this 200 feet is necessary "to make the one-quarter of lineal feet" required, and that, while the application purports to have been signed by the Church of the Sacred Heart, yet the signature was not properly made, nor authorized by the church corporation. To the application, as contained in the return of the writ, the signature of the church appears, among other owners, as follows: "The Trustees of the Church of the Sacred Heart, per W. A. Purcell, Treas. 200 feet frontage." The petition thus signed was dated and presented August 14, 1896. The objection of the prosecutor is that this is not a proper signature of the church to the petition, and that the signature was not authorized...