Rodgers v. Taggart

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Rodgers v. Taggart

199 A. 47, 120 N.J.L. 243, 1938 N.J. LEXIS 362

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedMay 11, 1938

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 199 A. 47 (Rodgers v. Taggart) 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

Rodgers v. Taggart, 199 A. 47, 120 N.J.L. 243, 1938 N.J. LEXIS 362 (N.J. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The judgment of the Supreme Court is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Brogan.

We reserve the question of whether a municipal recorder is a state or local officer, within the intendment of article IY, section 5, paragraph 3 of the Constitution of New Jersey. In so far as he discharges purely local functions, he is indubitably in the latter category, but as regards the enforcement of the Crimes Act and kindred state statutes enacted in the exercise of the police power, he exercises a state governmental function rather than one strictly municipal. The disposition of that question is not necessary to the decision. Even though he be classified as a municipal officer, he is, as pointed out in the opinion of the Chief Justice, within the prohibition of the cited provisions of the Constitution. Whatever may be the effect of other constitutional provisions, that clearly creates the disability found by the Supreme Court.

For affirmance — The Chancelloe, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heheb, Peeskib, Dbae, WolesKeil, Walkeb, JJ. 9.

For reversal — Heteield, Weils, Raeeeety, JJ. 3.

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

Per Curiam.

The judgment of the Supreme Court is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Brogan.

We reserve the question of whether a municipal recorder is a state or local officer, within the intendment of article IY, section 5, paragraph 3 of the Constitution of New Jersey. In so far as he discharges purely local functions, he is indubitably in the latter category, but as regards the enforcement of the Crimes Act and kindred state statutes enacted in the exercise of the police power, he exercises a state governmental function rather than one strictly municipal. The disposition of that question is not necessary to the decision. Even though he be classified as a municipal officer, he is, as pointed out in the opinion of the Chief Justice, within the prohibition of the cited provisions of the Constitution. Whatever may be the effect of other constitutional provisions, that clearly creates the disability found by the Supreme Court.

For affirmance — The Chancelloe, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heheb, Peeskib, Dbae, WolesKeil, Walkeb, JJ. 9.

For reversal — Heteield, Weils, Raeeeety, JJ. 3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 A. 47, 120 N.J.L. 243, 1938 N.J. LEXIS 362, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodgers-v-taggart-nj-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack