Case ID: njl_88/html/0734-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGH OF POINT PLEASANT BEACH, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. ANTOINETTE MOORE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    Argued July 1, 1915
    Decided July 1, 1915.
    On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which the following per curiam was. filed:
    “The borough built a sewer and paid for it by the issue of bonds. It, by resolution, fixed the rates to he charged for use of the sewer. The defendant connected her house with the sewer, and having refused to pay rent, suit was brought to recover for three years, and the borough had judgment.
    “The defendant appeals, and argues, first, that the legislature has not given to the borough the power to fix rates or to collect them. There is nothing in this point. The eight}'eigbth section of the Borough act provides that it may make regulations as to the management and ‘use of the same, and as to connections therewith, and impose and collect rates therefor/ Imposing rates refers to the use after connections with the sewer are made. There must be a connection if there is to be use, and the power to impose rates implies the power to collect them. It is not a tax or assessment, but compensation for use.
    
      “The next point is, that the fixing of the rates must be done by ordinance, and not by resolution. We do not think so. It is an administrative function, and unless required to be exercised by ordinance, it may be by resolution. The statute does not require an ordinance.
    “Nor is there anything in the point that the resolutions are uncertain. It seems to us that they are clear and certain. The other points raised are such as the defendant should raise by certiorari, and the legal status of the resolutions cannot be challenged collaterally.
    “The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.”
    For the appellant, Horace L. Allen.
    
    For the respondent, Clarence H. Murphy.
    
   Per Curiam.

The judgment under review will be affirmed, for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

For affirmance—The Chancellor, Chiee Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Vredenburgi-i, White, Terhune, Heppenheimer, Williams, JJ. 12.

For reversal—None.