Viracola v. Comm'rs of City of Long Branch
| Decision Date | 04 May 1923 |
| Citation | 142 A. 252 |
| Parties | VIRACOLA v. COMMISSIONERS OF CITY OF LONG BRANCH et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Original application for writ of certiorari by Michael A. Viracola against the Commissioners of the City of Long Branch and others to review an award of a contract for disposal of garbage and ashes. Application denied.
Argued April term, 1923, before KALISCH, BLACK, and KATZENBACH, JJ.
William L. Edwards and Leo J. Warwick, both of Long Branch, for prosecutor.
Thomas P. Fay, of Long Branch, for City of Long Branch.
Reilly, Quinn & Parsons, of Red Bank, for Tice.
This is an application for a writ of certiorari to review the award of a contract for the disposal of garbage and ashes made by the board of commissioners of the city of Long Branch to Norman S. Tice, trading as Norman S. Tice & Co. The contract is for a period of five years. The payment for the first year is $21,000. Thereafter there is an annual increase of $500.
The prosecutor contends, first, that under an amendment of article 11 of the Home Rule Act of 1917 (P. L. 1917, p. 347), known as chapter 163 of the Laws of 1918 (P. L. 1918, p. 478), the board of commissioners of Long Branch were without authority to make this contract because prior to the making thereof the board of commissioners had not passed an ordinance authorizing an appropriation sufficient to meet the costs of carrying out the provisions of such contract. It is conceded by the prosecutor that the board of commissioners had power to make a five-year contract, provided the ordinance was passed. The 1918 amendment, so far as pertinent, reads as follows:
"No municipality shall enter into any contract whatsoever, the cost of which is to be met by funds other than those included in the budget of appropriations for the year, unless prior thereto there shall have been regularly adopted by the governing body of such municipality an ordinance authorizing an appropriation sufficient to meet the cost of carrying out the provisions of such contract: Provided, this section shall not affect the use of funds of departments, such as water departments, for the operation of which budget appropriations are not made."
The amount required to pay for the removal of garbage and ashes for the first year is included in the budget for the year 1923. We are of the opinion that the above section does not require the passage of an ordinance where, as in this case, the sums necessary to meet the obligations under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCutcheon v. State Bldg. Authority
...the Constitution of 1947. Cf. McMahon v. City of Bayonne, 163 A. 28, 10 N.J.Misc. 1215 (Sup.Ct.1932); Viracola v. Com'rs of City of Long Branch, 142 A. 252, 1 N.J.Misc. 200 (Sup.Ct.1923); DeBow v. Lakewood Township, 131 N.J.L. 291, 36 A.2d 605 (Sup.Ct.1944). Insofar as rentals which may bec......
-
Lipman v. Thomas.
...$5 for each day of noncompliance after commencing business. No further penalty is attached. Viracola v. Commissioners of Long Branch et al., Supreme Court of New Jersey, 142 A. 252, 1 N.J.Misc. 200; Rutkowsky v. Bozza, supra; Huey v. Passarelli, supra; Kusnetsky v. Security Ins. Co., 313 Mo......
-
Petition of Gardiner
...of the contract for the first year, within the provisions of sections 40:2--29 and 40:50--6, the court citing Viracola v. Long Branch, 1 N.J.Misc. 200, 142 A. 252 (Sup.Ct.1923), and De Bow v. Lakewood Township, 131 N.J.L. 291, 36 A.2d 605 (Sup.Ct.1944), in both of which contentions like tha......
-
De Lorenzo v. City of Hackensack
...1951 or further ordinance was necessary (Debow v. Lakewood Township, 131 N.J.L. 291, 36 A.2d 605 (Sup.Ct.1944); Viracola v. Long Beach, 142 A. 252, 1 N.J.Misc. 200 (Sup.Ct.1923)). The ensuing judgment dismissing the taxpayer's complaint and granting the relief sought by the authority is now......