Boult v. Board of Education of Passaic

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Boult v. Board of Education of Passaic

51 A.2d 537, 135 N.J.L. 329, 1947 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 146

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedMarch 19, 1947

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 51 A.2d 537 (Boult v. Board of Education of Passaic) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Boult v. Board of Education of Passaic, 51 A.2d 537, 135 N.J.L. 329, 1947 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 146 (N.J. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

The’ opinion of the court was delivered by

Parker, J.

The controlling question in this case, and in our view the only one that requires specific discussion, is whether the Board of Education of the City of Passaic had jurisdiction, in its discretion and of its own motion, to discontinue one of the public schools of that city. It is also argued that even if the jurisdiction existed, the discretion was improperly exercised: but assuming for present purposes without deciding, that-this court has jurisdiction to- review the administrative acts of the statutory school authorities, we perceive no' illegality calling for judicial interposition, and 'indeed no illegality at all. The jurisdiction of the statutory authorities seems clear, and the closing of an existing school is nothing new. Downs v. Board of Education, 12 N. J. Mis. R. 345, 347; affirmed sub. tit., Flechtner v. Board of Education, 113 N. J. L. 401. All that we are asked to review is an exercise of judgment by an administrative body within its jurisdiction, which is not a court function. There is no suggestion of bad faith or dishonesty on the part of the defendants or any of them, and we see no indication of either.

On the merits the writs will be dismissed, with costs. This result makes it unnecessary to deal with the motion to dismiss them on procedural grounds.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The’ opinion of the court was delivered by

Parker, J.

The controlling question in this case, and in our view the only one that requires specific discussion, is whether the Board of Education of the City of Passaic had jurisdiction, in its discretion and of its own motion, to discontinue one of the public schools of that city. It is also argued that even if the jurisdiction existed, the discretion was improperly exercised: but assuming for present purposes without deciding, that-this court has jurisdiction to- review the administrative acts of the statutory school authorities, we perceive no' illegality calling for judicial interposition, and 'indeed no illegality at all. The jurisdiction of the statutory authorities seems clear, and the closing of an existing school is nothing new. Downs v. Board of Education, 12 N. J. Mis. R. 345, 347; affirmed sub. tit., Flechtner v. Board of Education, 113 N. J. L. 401. All that we are asked to review is an exercise of judgment by an administrative body within its jurisdiction, which is not a court function. There is no suggestion of bad faith or dishonesty on the part of the defendants or any of them, and we see no indication of either.

On the merits the writs will be dismissed, with costs. This result makes it unnecessary to deal with the motion to dismiss them on procedural grounds.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.2d 537, 135 N.J.L. 329, 1947 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boult-v-board-of-education-of-passaic-nj-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack