Orth v. City of Hackensack

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Orth v. City of Hackensack

168 A. 173, 11 N.J. Misc. 767, 1933 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 96

DecidedSeptember 15, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 168 A. 173 (Orth v. City of Hackensack) 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

Orth v. City of Hackensack, 168 A. 173, 11 N.J. Misc. 767, 1933 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 96 (N.J. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an application for a writ of certiorari to review an item in the 1933 budget of the city of Hackensack. The [768]*768prosecutor is a member of the Hackensack Improvement Commission, the governing body of the municipality.

The item under attack is “reserve against uncollected taxes $200,400.” The first ground is that this item violates that section of the Budget act which provides that the amount to be raised shall be stated, the appropriations itemized and the several items set forth accurately according to the respective and particular objects, departments or sub-departments for which the respective amounts are to be expended. Reliance is had upon Mackey v. Belvidere, 101 N. J. L. 250; 128 Atl. Rep. 859, where the appropriation held invalid was “preservation of life and property $12,150.” In that.case Mr. Justice Trenchard held that the item in the budget gave the taxpayers no information as to how the money was to be spent and that there was nothing in the return to the writ which clarified it. In the instant case there seems little doubt of the purpose of the item.

Hnless the merits of the application are clear, the court ought not exercise the prerogative writ of certiorari to throw confusion into the financial affairs of the city. Hourigan v. North Bergen, 11 N. J. Mis. R. 194; 165 Atl. Rep. 74. We conclude the rights of the prosecutor are not clear in this case.

The rule to show cause is discharged.

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

Per Curiam.

This is an application for a writ of certiorari to review an item in the 1933 budget of the city of Hackensack. The [768]*768prosecutor is a member of the Hackensack Improvement Commission, the governing body of the municipality.

The item under attack is “reserve against uncollected taxes $200,400.” The first ground is that this item violates that section of the Budget act which provides that the amount to be raised shall be stated, the appropriations itemized and the several items set forth accurately according to the respective and particular objects, departments or sub-departments for which the respective amounts are to be expended. Reliance is had upon Mackey v. Belvidere, 101 N. J. L. 250; 128 Atl. Rep. 859, where the appropriation held invalid was “preservation of life and property $12,150.” In that.case Mr. Justice Trenchard held that the item in the budget gave the taxpayers no information as to how the money was to be spent and that there was nothing in the return to the writ which clarified it. In the instant case there seems little doubt of the purpose of the item.

Hnless the merits of the application are clear, the court ought not exercise the prerogative writ of certiorari to throw confusion into the financial affairs of the city. Hourigan v. North Bergen, 11 N. J. Mis. R. 194; 165 Atl. Rep. 74. We conclude the rights of the prosecutor are not clear in this case.

The rule to show cause is discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 A. 173, 11 N.J. Misc. 767, 1933 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 96, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orth-v-city-of-hackensack-nj-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack