van Houghten v. City of Englewood

• Decision Date: 26 April 1940
• Docket Number: Nos. 408-411.,s. 408-411.
• Parties: VAN HOUGHTEN v. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD. WALL v. SAME.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

12 A.2d 668

124 N.J.L. 425

VAN HOUGHTEN

v. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD.

WALL

v. SAME.

Nos. 408-411.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

April 26, 1940.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. A municipal officer who continued in office after his salary was reduced, receiving warrants for semi-monthly payments of his salary during the term, waived thereby all objections to such reduction.

2. Plaintiffs (policemen) appointed to the force in December, 1931, had accepted throughout the entire term for their services a salary which, because of difficult times, was less than they would have received in normal times. They did this voluntarily for the year 1937, and the city reasonably understood, as a result of conference with plaintiffs or their representatives, that they would do this voluntarily in 1938, and the city made its annual budget and other financial arrangements accordingly. Plaintiffs accepted the pay at that rate for the greater part of the year 1938, receipting for it twice a month "in full for all services". By their action in 1938, in the light of their action in prior years, they have agreed, and are estopped to deny that they have agreed, that for the year 1938 their salary should be at the prior reduced rate, and they cannot now claim to be awarded any additional pay for that year.

Appeal from District Court, Bergen County.

Consolidated suits by Esler Van Houghten and Adolph Wall against the City of Englewood to recover claims for additional pay as patrolmen on the defendant's police force. From an adverse judgment, the defendant appeals.

Reversed.

Argued January term, 1940, before TRENCHARD, CASE, and HEHER, JJ.

William Breslin, of Englewood, for plaintiffs-appellees.

F. Hamilton Reeve, of Englewood (John W. Griggs and William J. Morrison, Jr., both of Hackensack, of counsel), for defendants-appellants.

TRENCHARD, Justice.

Four suits were brought in the District Court and by consent were consolidated and tried together before the judge, sitting without a jury. A judgment for the plaintiff was entered in each suit and defendant has appealed from each of these judgments, on the ground that there was no evidence to support them.

Plaintiffs are patrolmen, members of the Englewood Police Force. Both were appointed on December 1, 1931, and have served continuously since that time and are presently serving.

We are here concerned only with plaintiffs' claims for additional pay for the years 1938 and 1939.

We believe that under the evidence the plaintiffs are estopped to claim or be awarded any additional pay for 1938.

The salaries of patrolmen in Englewood were fixed in 1924 at $2,000 per annum, with an advance each year until a salary of $2,500 for the fifth year of service was reached. As stated, plaintiffs were appointed patrolmen on December 1, 1931. For the year 1932 they voluntarily accepted a reduced salary. For 1933, 1934, 1935 and 1936 they accepted a salary reduced in the manner provided by the Emergency Acts. For 1937 they accepted their salary without "increments" pursuant to a resolution of the Mayor and Council. We have pointed out that in the cases now before this court, no claim is made in respect to salaries for 1937 or prior years; the claims in the present suits relate to the salaries for 1938 and 1939. The plaintiffs knew, of course, that their salary was a yearly one payable in semi-monthly installments, for that had been the arrangement ever since they had been patrolmen. They knew, of course, that the city was unable, in those difficult years, to increase salaries by "increments" or otherwise, and no doubt considered themselves fortunate that their "base salaries" were paid without the reductions suffered or voluntarily accepted by many other public officials and employees. For the common good they voluntarily accepted pay without "increments" in 1932. For 1933, 1934, 1935 and 1936 their pay was fixed by the method provided in the so-called Emergency Acts. P.L.1933, ch. 14; F.L.1933, ch. 459; P.L.1935, ch. 5; P.L. 1936, ch. 6. When these acts no longer empowered the city to reduce their pay, they again, in 1937, accepted pay "without increments" for that year. Later, in December, 1937, or early in January, 1938, the governing officials of the city had a conference with the policemen, or their representatives, as to their salary for 1938. Apparently the policemen agreed for 1938, as they had done for 1937, to continue to accept their yearly salaries without "increments", for the budget appropriation tor these salaries for 1938 was made on chat basis and the policemen were paid in 1938 on that basis. Each of them was paid $87.50 semi-monthly and accepted 23 such payments (until December 31, 1938), signing each time the following statement: "I hereby acknowledge that I have received...