Case ID: njl_16/html/0391-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Dayton, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MATTER OF HIGHWAY.
    Six Surveyors having decided against the application for a road, separated; and afterwards on the same day, four of them met and laid the road. Held, that their proceedings were illegal.
    Application for a road and the notice thereof should designate the beginning and terminating points.
    Surveyors sworn into office as city officers, are not thereby authorized to act as township officers also.
    An oath in blank, is no legal oatli. Each oath and the administration thereof, must be separate, and individually subscribed.
    
      II. W. Green,
    
    moved to quash the return of a road laid in the counties of Hunterdon and Burlington, on the application of Samuel Anderson and others, signed by four surveyors of the highways :
    1st. Because, at the time of the application for the appointment of the surveyors, there were no stakes or monuments existing, at which the road was to begin or to end.
    One of the stakes being driven in the ground only a week before the day of meeting of the surveyors, and the other set down on the day of meeting.
    2nd. The surveyors after viewing the ground, refused to lay the road, and then separated. After which, four of them met and signed the return.
    3dly. The surveyors of Trenton were sworn in as city not as township officers. And their oath is, “ that they will execute the office of signed on a general parchment roll.
    
      In support of his motion, Mr. Green cited Griffith’s Treat. 546, in which the form of an application is given. Supplement to Trenton City Charter, passed seventh March, 1837.
    
      Hamilton, contra.
    Hornblower, C. J.
    I am inclined to think, all the objections to these proceedings, are fatal, but am decidedly of opinion the second is so.
    After the surveyors have decided upon the application, and have separated, they cannot alter their decision, even if all of them unite in a reconsideration.
    The third objection is also fatal. The city surveyors are substituted for township surveyors; and besides, the oath of each officer should be subscribed by him.
    Eord, J.
    Has some doubts on the first and second points but has none on the third.
    The oaths of the surveyors are in blank.
    White, J.
    I am inclined to think the return must be quashed on the first objection. The beginning and terminating points of roads, are of great importance and should be accurately described. ■ In this case, there is no certainty as to the place of termination.
    The conduct of the surveyors in re-assembling and acting, was improper and irregular.
    The official oaths being mere blanks, are nullities.
   Dayton, J.

My opinion is, that each of the objections is good. The beginning point, as contended for, is not sufficiently designated; and the ending point was unknown, not even existing, at the time of application.

On the second point, I am as fully decided. After settling and announcing their decision, the surveyors and the public had dispersed, when a part of the surveyors re-assembled and signed the return.

The affidavit of the surveyors is verbal, and not verified as it ought to be.

Return quashed.

Cited in State v. Green, 3 Harr. 182; State v. Northrup, Id. 275.