State v. Mayor

Decision Date20 November 1885
PartiesSTATE ex rel. KEENEY v. MAYOR, ETC., OF JERSEY CITY.
CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court

On certiorari to court of common picas of Hudson county, bringing up a judgment on appeal, reversing the judgment of the prosecutor in the First district court of Jersey City.

The action was brought to recover for the work and materials of said Keeney, furnished June 23, 1881, used in repairing a large sewer in Thirteenth street, Jersey City, built and owned by the city, amounting to $200. The statement of the case for appeal was settled, and signed by the judge of the district court, and by it the material facts are that the top of the sewer had fallen in for about 60 feet in length. Its location was in the lower part of Jersey City, as distinguished from the Heights, and it had been constructed at the place of leakage with a thicker wall, to resist the great pressure of water there on its way to the river. There was danger that if the sewer were left open and spread until a rain-storm came, the great quantity and force of the water coining down from the Heights would tear away the sewer, and flood a large part of the lower and level part of the city where it is built up. When the break occurred. David Williams was chairman of the committee on streets and sewers, a subcommittee of the board of public works of Jersey City. He immediately obtained estimates and bids from different persons who could do the work, and gave to Keeney, who was the lowest bidder, an order for the prompt repair of the sewer. After the repairs were finished the work was examined by the chief engineer of the board of public works, who reported that it was done in a good and workmanlike manner. July 5, 1881, Keeney made out his claim in a form furnished by the board of public works, under oath, and presented it to the board at a regular meeting, who referred it to the committee on streets and sewers. On November 6, 1882, the bill was examined, with others, by said board, marked "goods received and bill correct," and by their resolution sent to the board of finance and taxation for their concurrence and payment. It also appears that there was money in the city treasury, which was part of the appropriation for streets and sewers for the fiscal year 1880-81, when the work was done, sufficient to pay this claim. The board of finance and taxation did not concur and pay the bill, and this action was brought and judgment given in the district court for $200 and costs. On appeal this judgment was reversed and this certiorari was brought.

James Flemming, for prosecutor.

Roderick B. Seymour, for defendants.

SCUDDER, J. The facts above stated are by the statute conclusive both on appeal and in this court on certiorari. There is no question made that the work was well done, in good faith between the contractor and the street commissioner; that it is worth all that is claimed, and the city has received the benefit of it. Why the board of finance and taxation did not concur with the board of public works in their ratification of the act of the street commissioner and pay the bill, does not appear. Before the courts this board has placed itself on its legal right to refuse its concurrence, for reasons satisfactory to itself. Without any further facts being shown, we cannot judge the reasonableness or unreasonableness of their opposition and must dispose of the case in the form in which it is presented.

Under the charter of Jersey City, (Laws 1871, p. 1113, §§ 38, 39,) the board of public works has control of all public sewers and drainage, and by section 53 the expense of keeping sewers in order shall be borne by the city at large and paid by a general tax. Section 159 requires advertisements for six days, at least, before any contract shall be made for work and materials on account of any board or department of the city government, and to be given to the bidder offering the most advantageous...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • McGinnis v. City of St. Louis
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 12, 1900
    ... ... Louis is distinctly ... expressed both in the charter and ordinance of the city and ... by the statute of the state. Charter St. Louis, secs. 1 and ... 15, art. 6; R. S. 1889, secs. 1123 and 1137. Said provisions ... expressly prohibit the city from taking charge ... is expressed in the charter. 1 Dillon on Mun. Corp. (4 Ed.), ... sec. 91, and note; Ex parte Mayor v. Florence, 78 ... Ala. 419; Smith v. Cheshire, 13 Gray 308; ... Lafayette v. Cox, 5 Ind. 38; Collins v ... Hatch, 18 Ohio 523; Port Huron v ... ...
  • Gutta Percha & Rubber Manufacturing Company v. Village of Ogalalla
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • June 5, 1894
    ... ... Corporations [4th ed.], secs. 130, 444, 457, 461, 462, 936; ... Nash v. City of St. Paul, 11 Minn. 110; Brady v ... Mayor of City of New York, 20 N.Y. 312; City of ... Bryan v. Page, 51 Tex. 532; San Diego Water Co. v ... City of San Diego, 59 Cal. 517; People v. May, ... Ackley, 44 Iowa 122; McDonald v. Mayor of City of ... New York, 68 N.Y. 23; City of Blair v. Lantry, ... 21 Neb. 253; National State Bank of Mt. Pleasant v ... Independent District of Marshall, 39 Iowa 490; ... French v. City of Burlington, 42 Iowa 614; ... Powell v. City of ... ...

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