State v. Mayor

• Decision Date: 17 June 1890
• Citation: 19 A. 1096,52 N.J.L. 490
• Parties: STATE (PROVIDENT INSTITUTION FOR SAVINGS, Prosecutor) v. MAYOR, ETC., OF JERSEY CITY.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

19 A. 1096

52 N.J.L. 490

STATE (PROVIDENT INSTITUTION FOR SAVINGS, Prosecutor)

v. MAYOR, ETC., OF JERSEY CITY.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

June 17, 1890.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Certiorari.

Argued before DEPUE and VAN SYCKEL, JJ.

Vredenburgh & Garrison, for plaintiff. W. D. Edwards, for defendant.

VAN SYCKEL, J. The final assessment for the improvement of Danforth avenue in Jersey City is certified into this court for review. The work done on the street included grading, curbing, guttering, sidewalks, and paving. For one block between Ocean avenue and the Central Railroad the petition asked for the paving of the carriage-way, while for the balance the gutters only were to be paved. The contract for the work was awarded April 25, 1885. The prosecutors acquired title to their property affected by this assessment on the 10th of August, 1885, and before the contractor had completed his work. The final assessment was filed February 12, 1886. Objections to its confirmation were presented March 22, and it was confirmed March 29, 1886. The prosecutors permitted the work to be completed without taking steps to arrest its execution, and now rest their case upon irregularities in the preliminary proceedings taken by the city.

The first reason relied on is that the grade of the street was illegally altered without the requisite consent of property owners. It appears that the alteration made was for sewerage purposes, and therefore consent was not necessary, as section 58 of the city charter provides that, where a change of grade is made necessary for the purpose of sewering, such change may be made by the hoard of public works without the consent of property owners. The petition for the improvements asks that all other work may be done that shall be necessary to provide for the flow of surface water. The objection that the owners of one-third of the land fronting on the street did not petition for the improvement is not sustained by the evidence. The owners of one-third of the frontage along the line of the improvement did petition for it. Even assuming that this was not sufficient, the city authorities acted in good faith in the belief that the requisite number had signed the petition. The city is therefore protected by the twenty-third section of the supplement of 1873 to the city charter, which provides "that if any application or petition not signed by the requisite number of owners shall be acted on by the city authorities in good faith, believing...