TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Inhabitants of North Bergen

THE STATE, EDWARD EVANS, PROSECUTORS v. THE INHABITANTS OF THE TOWNSHIP OF NORTH BERGEN

State v. Inhabitants of North Bergen, 39 N.J.L. 456 (1877)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of New Jersey · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 15, 1877
Judges
Oodiiull
Citations
39 N.J.L. 456
Headnotes
■Where an act provided that no certiorari to remove an assessment should be allowed after thirty days have elapsed from the confirmation of the assessment, the limitation will not begin to run if the confirmation has no legal existence for the want of notice of filing of the report, and of the convening of the township committee to consider objections touching the assessment.
Summary
Oh certiorari.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Oodiiull

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The opinion of the court was delivered by M oodiiull, J.

The matter to be determined in this case is the validity of an assessment for the grading, &c., of the -old county road in the township of North Bergen, under the act of March 18th, 1870. Lawn, 1870, p. 1312.

*457 The proceedings returned to us fail to show any substantial compliance with the provisions óf that act in the following essential particulars:

1. The commissioners by whom the assessment was made-were not, so far as appears, disinterested freeholders and residents of the township.

2. They did not respectively take and file the oath prescribed by the act, viz., that they had no interest in said improvement, and did not own any property .along the line-thereof.

3. The assessment, so far as appears, was in excess of the-benefits.

4. The commissioners did not examine into the whole matter of their charge, and report in writing what real estate, fronting upon said improvement, ought to be assessed, and what proportion of the entire expense thereof should be assessed to each separate parcel or lot of land.

5. It does not appear that the township clerk, after the-filing of the commissioners’ report, gave notice, for at least ten- days, stating that the same had been duly filed, and when and where the township committee would convene to consider-objections in writing touching said assessment.

6. The attempted confirmation of the assessment, without such notice having been previously given, was illegal and void.

The objection that the writ in this case was not allowed within the time limited by the act, cannot prevail.

Section 7 provides “that after thirty days have elapsed from the date of confirmation named in the preceding section,, no certiorari may be allowed,” &c. But the confirmation named in the preceding section having- never had any legal existence, for want of the notice referred to above, it follows, that the prescribed limitation has not yet commenced to run.

The writ must therefore be retained, and, for the reasons indicated above, the assessment-, with all proceedings under it, must, as to the prosecutors, be set aside, with costs.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list