State v. Board of Chosen Freeholders

Supreme Court of New Jersey

State v. Board of Chosen Freeholders

13 A. 173, 50 N.J.L. 396, 1888 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 72

DecidedFebruary 15, 1888

StatusPublished

This text of 13 A. 173 (State v. Board of Chosen Freeholders) 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

State v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 13 A. 173, 50 N.J.L. 396, 1888 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 72 (N.J. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This writ is asked for on the ground that by the Health act of March 31st, 1887 [Pamph. L., p. 80), the local' board of health has power to pass, alter and amend ordinances, and make rules and regulations, in regard to the public health, for the purpose of securing the sanitary condition of jails and prisons. The primary difficulty with the application is that [397]*397it does not appear that the board of health has passed any ordinance, or made any rule or regulation with regard to the-Camden county jail. Had such ordinance or regulation been adopted, and had the board of freeholders refused to comply with it, ground might exist for a mandamus to compel obedience; but in the absence of those conditions, we think this court cannot legally interfere.

The application must be denied.

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

Per Curiam.

This writ is asked for on the ground that by the Health act of March 31st, 1887 [Pamph. L., p. 80), the local' board of health has power to pass, alter and amend ordinances, and make rules and regulations, in regard to the public health, for the purpose of securing the sanitary condition of jails and prisons. The primary difficulty with the application is that [397]*397it does not appear that the board of health has passed any ordinance, or made any rule or regulation with regard to the-Camden county jail. Had such ordinance or regulation been adopted, and had the board of freeholders refused to comply with it, ground might exist for a mandamus to compel obedience; but in the absence of those conditions, we think this court cannot legally interfere.

The application must be denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A. 173, 50 N.J.L. 396, 1888 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 72, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-board-of-chosen-freeholders-nj-1888.