Strobel Steel Const. Co. v. State Highway Comm'n, No. 25.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey) |
| Writing for the Court | WELLS, Judge. |
| Citation | 198 A. 774 |
| Docket Number | No. 25. |
| Decision Date | 29 April 1938 |
| Parties | STROBEL STEEL CONST. CO. v. STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION. |
STROBEL STEEL CONST. CO.
v.
STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION.
No. 25.
Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.
April 29, 1938.
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Union Circuit.
Action by the Strobel Steel Construction Company against the State Highway Commission of the State of New Jersey, wherein the State Highway Commissioner was substituted as defendant, to recover an alleged balance due under a contract. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
John J. Stamler, of Elizabeth, and Merritt Lane, of Newark, for appellant. David T. Wilentz, Atty. Gen., and William A. O'Brien, Benjamin C. Van Tine, and William J. McCormack, Asst. Attys. Gen., for respondent.
WELLS, Judge.
This is an action by the plaintiff, a contractor, against the State Highway Commission of the state of New Jersey, to recover an alleged balance due to it under a contract whereby it agreed to furnish and deliver all material and labor for the construction of route No. 10, in conformity with the specifications of the State Highway Department, and whereby the State Highway Commission agreed to pay to the plaintiff "for said work when completed in accordance with said plans and specifications" the prices specified in said contract.
The complaint originally filed improperly named the State Highway Commission rather than the State Highway Commissioner as the defendant. See P.L.1935 c. 178, p. 440, § 8, 1 Rev.Stat.1937, 27: 1-1, N.J.St.Annual 1935, § 179-780j(8). An amendment was allowed correcting this mistake.
Before this amendment was allowed, however, an application was made to the trial court, sitting as Supreme Court commissioner, to quash the summons and dismiss the complaint upon the ground that the state of New Jersey could not be sued in its own court without its consent, and that a suit against the State Highway Commission, an agency of the state, was in effect a suit against the state itself, and could not be maintained because consent to be sued had not been given.
The trial court struck the complaint, holding that the suit was one in effect against the state, relying upon Curtis & Hill Gravel & Sand Co. v. State Highway Commission, Ch., 1920, 91 N.J. Eq. 421, 111 A. 16, 20, wherein Vice Chancellor Buchanan said: "That the state highway commission is an alter ego of the state, and not a mere subordinate, is so clear as to need little discussion. The statute (P.L.1917, p. 35, § 1) creates a state highway department, to 'be governed by a board to be known as the state highway commission.' The members of the commission are the Governor himself, ex officio, and eight members appointed by the Governor by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The contracts made by the commission are clearly contracts of the state; they may be made either in the name of the state or of the commission. The funds expended for its work are the funds of the state, and expended through the usual state channels. The work which it is to do is the construction and maintenance of a state highway system, reaching throughout the entire state and for the benefit of all the citizens, not merely in or for the benefit of any particular locality of the citizens thereof."
With this enunciation of the learned vice chancellor we are in accord. There have been numerous decisions in the courts of our state to the same general effect, some of which cite Curtis & Hill Gravel & Sand Co. v. State Highway Commission, supra; see Haycock v. Jannarone, Err. & App., 99 N.J.L. 183, 122 A. 805; Nesbitt v. Board of Managers, New Jersey Agriculture Experiment Station, Sup., 1931, 157 A. 551, 10 N.J.Misc. 19; Stephens v. Commissioners of the Palisades Interstate Park, Err. & App, 1919, 93 N.J.L. 500, 108 A. 645; DeSantis v. D, L. & W. Railroad et al., Sup, 1933, 165 A. 119, 11 N.J. Misc. 22; Board of Tenement House Supervision v. Schlechter, Sup., 1912, 83
N.J.L. 88, 83 A. 783; State Highway Comm. v. Elizabeth, 102 N.J.Eq. 221, 140 A. 335, affirmed 103 N.J.Eq. 376, 143 A. 916. See, also, interesting comment in this court's per curiam opinion in Union Indemnity Co. v. State Highway Commission, 105 N.J.L. 656, at page 657, 146 A. 206.
A suit brought against a state agency is, in fact, a suit against the state, if the judgment obtained will operate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Phillips v. State, Dept. of Defense
...sovereign immunity became embedded in our jurisprudence. See, e.g., Strobel Steel Constr. Co. v. State Highway Comm'n, 120 N.J.L. 298, 301, 198 A. 774 (E. & A. 1938); Lodor v. Baker, Arnold & Co., 39 N.J.L. 49, 50 (Sup.Ct.1876). The courts occasionally whittled away at sovereign immunity. S......
-
Taylor v. New Jersey Highway Authority, No. A--29
...See Gallena v. Scott, 11 N.J. 231, 94 A.2d 312 (1953); Strobel Steel Construction Co. v. State Highway Comm., 120 N.J.L. 298, 198 A. 774 (E. & A.1938); Miller v. Port of New Page 467 York Authority, 18 N.J.Misc. 601, 15 A.2d 262 (Sup.Ct.1939). Cf. Duke Power Co. v. Patten, 20 N.J. 42, 50, 1......
-
Interstate Wrecking Co. v. Palisades Interstate Park Commission
...immunity and to authorize suits against the Commission generally. See Storbel Steel, & c., Co. v. State Highway Com., 120 N.J.L. 298, 303, 198 A. 774 (E. & A. 1938); Karp v. High Point Park Commission, 131 N.J.Eq. 249, 250--251, 24 A.2d 860 (Ch.), aff'd, 132 N.J.Eq. 351, 28 A.2d 118 (E. & A......
-
Delaware River and Bay Authority v. International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots, No. A--123
...at p. Page 149 272, 67 S.Ct., at p. 686, 91 L.Ed., at p. 902; see Strobel Steel, etc., Co. v. State Highway Comm., 120 N.J.L. 298, 302, 198 A. 774 (E. & A. 1938); N.J. Inter. Bridge & Tun. Comm. v. Jersey City, 93 N.J.Eq. 550, 553, 118 A. 264 (Ch.1922); [211 A.2d 795] cf. Estelle v. Bd. of ......
-
Phillips v. State, Dept. of Defense
...sovereign immunity became embedded in our jurisprudence. See, e.g., Strobel Steel Constr. Co. v. State Highway Comm'n, 120 N.J.L. 298, 301, 198 A. 774 (E. & A. 1938); Lodor v. Baker, Arnold & Co., 39 N.J.L. 49, 50 (Sup.Ct.1876). The courts occasionally whittled away at sovereign immunity. S......
-
Taylor v. New Jersey Highway Authority, No. A--29
...See Gallena v. Scott, 11 N.J. 231, 94 A.2d 312 (1953); Strobel Steel Construction Co. v. State Highway Comm., 120 N.J.L. 298, 198 A. 774 (E. & A.1938); Miller v. Port of New Page 467 York Authority, 18 N.J.Misc. 601, 15 A.2d 262 (Sup.Ct.1939). Cf. Duke Power Co. v. Patten, 20 N.J. 42, 50, 1......
-
Interstate Wrecking Co. v. Palisades Interstate Park Commission
...immunity and to authorize suits against the Commission generally. See Storbel Steel, & c., Co. v. State Highway Com., 120 N.J.L. 298, 303, 198 A. 774 (E. & A. 1938); Karp v. High Point Park Commission, 131 N.J.Eq. 249, 250--251, 24 A.2d 860 (Ch.), aff'd, 132 N.J.Eq. 351, 28 A.2d 118 (E. & A......
-
Delaware River and Bay Authority v. International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots, No. A--123
...at p. Page 149 272, 67 S.Ct., at p. 686, 91 L.Ed., at p. 902; see Strobel Steel, etc., Co. v. State Highway Comm., 120 N.J.L. 298, 302, 198 A. 774 (E. & A. 1938); N.J. Inter. Bridge & Tun. Comm. v. Jersey City, 93 N.J.Eq. 550, 553, 118 A. 264 (Ch.1922); [211 A.2d 795] cf. Estelle v. Bd. of ......