State v. Mayor & Council of Borough of Rutherford

Decision Date05 March 1923
Docket NumberNo. 76.,76.
Citation120 A. 202
PartiesSTATE et al. v. MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD et al.
CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Certiorari by the State, Trustees for the support of Public Schools, and another, against the Mayor and Council of the Borough of Rutherford and others, to review an assessment of local taxes against property belonging to the trustees. From a judgment in favor of defendants the prosecutors appeal. Reversed.

This certiorari is to review an assessment of local taxes against property belonging to the trustees for the support of public schools. The land was mortgaged by William J. Stewart, the then owner, to the commissioners of the sinking fund, and on foreclosure was conveyed to that board by the sheriff of Bergen county, by deed dated June 4, 1879. The commissioners of the sinking fund were abolished (P. L. 1891, p. 136), and the state treasurer was vested with their powers (C. S. p. 4956, par. 93; P. L. 1903, p. 366; C. S. p. 4956, par. 96). The state treasurer was required by the Legislature to deliver to the trustees for the support of public schools all moneys held in the name of the commissioners of the sinking fund and of the state treasurer as their successor. He was directed to convey to the trustees for the support, of public schools all lands standing in the name of the commissioners of the sinking fund or the state treasurer as successor, and to assign to the trustees all mortgages standing in the name of the commissioners of the sinking fund or in the name of the state treasurer as successor.

The title to the land which formerly belonged to the sinking fund was thus vested in the trustees for the support of public schools. The land on which the present taxes are assessed was conveyed by the then state treasurer to the present prosecutor, and although the assessment for taxes continued to be made in the name of the commissioners of the sinking fund, it is conceded it should have been made in the name of the trustees for the support of public schools. The substantial claim on the part of the prosecution is that under the Constitution, article 4, section 7, paragraph 6, the property of the trustees for public schools is not subject to local taxes.

Thomas F. McCran, Atty. Gen., for appellants.

John M. Bell, of Rutherford, for appellees.

SWAYZE, J. (after stating the facts as above). The language of the Constitution seems to us too plain to call for interpretation or construction. The fund for the support of public schools, and all moneys, stock, and other property which may be appropriated for that purpose, or received into the treasury under the provisions of any law passed to augment the fund, is to be securely invested and remain a perpetual fund, and the income thereof, except so much as it may be adjudged expedient to apply to an increase of the capital, is to be annually appropriated to the support of public schools for the equal benefit of all the people of the state. By express prohibition it is not competent for the Legislature to borrow, appropriate, or use the fund, or any part thereof, for any other purpose, under any pretense whatever. Obviously the Constitution intended that the fund and the property in which it was invested were to remain a perpetual fund for public schools, and in order to guard specifically against its being spent by the Legislature, provision was made, limiting the purposes for which the income could be spent to the support of public schools, except so much as it might be adjudged expedient to apply to an Increase of the capital. The Legislature may provide for the expenditure of the income of the school fund, but only for the annual support of the schools, or an increase of the capital of the fund.

That language makes it plain that the income cannot be used for the payment of local taxes to the municipality in which any of the real estate of the school fund may lie. The Income can never be spent except for increase of capital or the support of public schools for the equal benefit of all the people of the state. Nor can it be said that the payment of local taxes is no more than the payment of a necessary charge upon the property of the school fund. Local taxes are not a necessary charge upon property of the state. The question was thoroughly...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Everson v. Bd. Of Educ. Of Ewing Tp.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • October 15, 1945
    ...trust fund. The capital of the fund and the income therefrom were protected against trespass by the legislature. State v. Borough of Rutherford, 98 N.J.L. 465, 467, 120 A. 202. The constitutional provision together with other statutes identifies the fund therein referred to. The amendment o......
  • Dickinson v. Fund for the Support of Free Public Schools
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court
    • July 8, 1982
    ...of Education, 133 N.J.L. 350, 352, 353 (E. & A. 1945), aff'd 330 U.S. 1, 67 S.Ct. 504, 91 L.Ed. 711 (1946); see State v. Rutherford, 98 N.J.L. 465, 466, 467 (E. & A. 1923). Together, Article VIII and N.J.S.A. 18A:56-5 prevent the removal of riparian lands from the school fund and impose lim......
  • Tr.s For Support Of Pub. Sch. v. Ott & Brewer Co.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Court of Chancery
    • June 8, 1944
    ...of being extinguished by the process of municipal tax sales. Trustees of Public Schools v. City of Trenton, supra; State v. Borough of Rutherford, 98 N.J.L. 465, 120 A. 202; Trustees of Public Schools v. Murphy, 130 N.J.L. 434, 33 A.2d 570. However, that subject is not at present appropriat......
  • Tr.s For Support Of Pub. Sch. v. Murphy
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • August 16, 1943
    ...conveyed said property to said Trustees, who continue to own same. This case is in all essential respects similar to State v. Rutherford, 98 N.J.L. 465, 120 A. 202, 203, where Mr. Justice Swayze, speaking for the Court of Errors and Appeals, said: ‘The substantial claim on the part of the p......
  • 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