Case ID: njl_135/html/0329-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Parker, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SARAH BOULT ET AL., PROSECUTORS, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF PASSAIC, AND COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION, AND THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, DEFENDANTS.
    Argued January 23, 1947
    Decided March 19, 1947.
    
      Before Justices Parker, Donges and Eastwood.
    For the prosecutors, William N. Gurtman.
    
    For the defendants, Samuel F. Riskin and Philip W. Riskin.
    
   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.