TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Mayor of Jersey City

THE STATE, THE CITY PUBLISHING COMPANY AND ANDREW McKNIGHT, PROSECUTORS v. THE MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OF JERSEY CITY AND THE NEW JERSEY STAATS ZEITUNG

State v. Mayor of Jersey City, 24 A. 571 (N.J. 1892)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of New Jersey · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 15, 1892
Judges
Dixon
Citations
24 A. 57154 N.J.L. 43725 Vroom 4371892 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 63
Headnotes
1. When a statute directs notice of facts to be published in a newspaper, the courts will presume, in the absence of any legislative intimation to the contrary, that the notice is to be given in the ordinary language of the state and in a newspaper published in the same tongue. 2. Taxpayers of a city may lawfully, in the discretion of the court, intervene by certiorari to prevent the illegal expenditure of municipal funds, deficiencies in which must be made up by general taxation.
Summary
On certiorari. Argued at June Term, 1892, before Justices Dixon and Werts.

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

Opinion of the Court — Dixon

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by Dixon, J.

This certiorari- brings up a resolution of the board of aldermen of Jersey City, designating “The New Jersey Staats Zeitung ” as the newspaper wherein shall be published the names, residences and places of business contained in applications or petitions for licenses to sell liquors, under the statute approved March 17th, 1892. This statute requires these names, &c., to be “ published in one daily newspaper published ” in the city. The “ Staats Zeitung ” is printed in the German type and language, and the ground upon which the legality of the resolution is questioned is, that only a newspaper printed in the English tongue can lawfully be designated.

We think this ground is well taken.

When a statute directs notice to be published in a newspaper, the courts will presume, in the absence of any indication to the contrary, that the legislature designed the notice to be published in the same language as the newspaper itself. North Baptist Church v. City of Orange, ante p. 111. They will also presume that the notice is to be given in the ordinary language of the state. Road in Upper Hanover, 44 Pa. St. 277.

The present statute contains no express intimation as to the language in which the notice is to be given or the newspaper is to be printed. Consequently, the presumptions mentioned arise, and require the notice to be given in English in a newspaper printed in the same tongue.

Counsel for the defendant suggests that the- only object of the law is to have a newspaper designated, so that the citizens may know where to find the requisite information, if they desire to seek it. But we think more than this was intended. The intention was to display this information where the citizens would be likely to see it in their ordinary search for *439 current news, even though they had no especial desire to learn these particular facts.

The resolution under reviejv is illegal.

It is further urged that the prosecutors have no right to question its legality.

The statute requires the expense of publication to be paid out of the license fees. These fees constitute by law municipal funds, to be devoted to specified municipal purposes. If these funds prove deficient, the deficiency must be made up by general taxation, for the purposes are such as the municipality is bound to carry out. Under these circumstances, taxpayers of the city may lawfully, in the discretion of the court, intervene to prevent the illegal expenditure of the funds. The prosecutors are taxpayers.

The resolution must be set aside.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 31 cases

View all citing references →
1893: 11894: 21897: 11898: 11903: 21904: 21910: 21911: 21915: 11916: 21923: 31924: 11926: 11932: 11933: 11934: 31936: 11941: 11946: 11953: 218932026peak 1923 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Shooters Island Shipyard Co. v. Standard Shipbuilding Corp.293 F. 706 (3d Cir. 1923)
  2. In re Leppert206 F.2d 83 (3d Cir. 1953)
  3. Franklin National Bank v. Whitehead49 N.E. 592 (Ind. 1898)
  4. Conners v. City of Lowell95 N.E. 412 (Mass. 1911)
  5. In re Antigo Screen Door Co.123 F. 249 (7th Cir. 1903)
  6. Shaw v. Borchers46 S.W.2d 967 (Tex. Comm'n App. 1932)

Most recent

  1. Barber v. Reina Nash Motor Company260 P.2d 928 (Wyo. 1953)
  2. In re Leppert206 F.2d 83 (3d Cir. 1953)
  3. Osco Motors Corp. v. Martin45 A.2d 454 (N.J. Ct. of Ch. 1946)
  4. In re Woolf42 F. Supp. 334 (D.N.J. 1941)
  5. Resnick v. Jefferson Holding & Building Corp.187 A. 916 (N.J. 1936)
  6. In re L'Italo-Americano38 P.2d 810 (Cal. Ct. App. 1934)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on 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