Uffert v. Voght

• Decision Date: 05 October 1900
• Citation: 65 N.J.L. 377,47 A. 225
• Parties: UFFERT v. VOGHT.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

47 A. 225

65 N.J.L. 377

UFFERT

v. VOGHT.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Oct. 5, 1900.

Original information in quo warranto by Edward H. Uffert against Andrew G. Voght Judgment rendered in favor of the relator.

Argued June term, 1900, before DEPUE, C. J., and GUMMERE, LUDLOW, and FORT, JJ.

Thomas N. McCarter, Jr., for relator.

Coult & Howell, for respondent.

GUMMERE, J. These proceedings are brought for the purpose of determining whether the relator or the respondent is entitled to hold the office of receiver of taxes of the city of Newark. By the charter of that city it was provided that this office should be filled by the common council, and that the receiver, when appointed, should continue to hold his office until it should be declared vacant, or until another person should be appointed to succeed him, and should enter upon his duties. The charter further provided that before entering upon the duties of his office the receiver should take and subscribe the oath of office prescribed by that instrument, and should give bond to the city for the faithful performance of his duties, in such sum and with such sureties as the common council might approve. Voght, the respondent, on the 21st day of May, 1897, was appointed under this charter provision for a term undefined in extent. On March 31st of that year the legislature had passed an act providing that "in any city of this state where the office of receiver of taxes, and treasurer, are, by law or charter, held for an indefinite term, it shall be lawful for the board of aldermen or common council to fix by ordinance a definite term, not exceeding five years, for such offices, and, when so fixed, the appointees shall hold offices until the expiration of the terms so fixed." P. L. 1897, p. 142. In pursuance of this latter statutory provision the common council of Newark on the 6th day of January, 1899, adopted an ordinance declaring that the receiver of taxes then holding office (the respondent), and every receiver of taxes who should be thereafter appointed, should hold office for the period of five years from the date of his or their appointment, respectively. Under and by virtue of this ordinance the respondent continued in office until the 4th day of May, 1900, when the common council declared the office of receiver of taxes to be vacant, and appointed the relator to succeed him. The latter took the oath of office prescribed by the city charter, and gave bond to the city for the faithful performance of his duties, which was approved by council as to amount and sureties. Notwithstanding the action of council, of May 4, 1900, and the qualifications for the office by the relator, the respondent refuses to surrender it, and continues his incumbency. Whether he is entitled to do so or not depends upon whether the legislation of March 31, 1897, violates the constitutional provision which prohibits the passing of private, local, or special laws regulating the internal affairs of towns and counties. It is manifest that this law regulates the internal affairs of the cities to which it applies. Is it a special or a general law? It is entirely settled that the constitutional provision referred to does not prohibit the legislature from passing laws regulating the internal affairs of only a selected portion of the cities of the state, provided that those selected are...