The Jersey City news., 1906-07-06
Justice Swayze Gives An
Opinion Which Interests
All State Municipalities
rs FUEL
DELIBERATIyE : BoDY's RlGHI
TO RECONSIDER CEASES WITH
FINAL DETERMI N ALTON
WHICH REMAINS IN FORCE IN
BOARDS EXISTENCE.
BOARDS EXISTENCE.

An opinion which viii be OF interest,"
To every municipal body and county or
panization in the state has been handed
down by. Justice Swayze in the court OF
errors and appeals. 1t decided that the
right of a. deliberative body to reconsider
.its action In q matter of a judicial OF
quasi judicial character ceases when a
.anol dissemination has been reached; al
SO such decision is final as soon at least
as the existence of the body ends. Inc
opinion says
"The, original resolution OF December
4. 1905. was adopted in pursuance OF tue
act of April 3, 9102. The act provlues
that upon the adoption of such resoiu-
tion, county building committee SHAH
be constituted, and by the act Oh 1871
this committee is empowered to erect
and furnish county buildings. such
committee was appointed pursuant 10
the statute Immediately upon the pass
age of the resolution Of December 4 ana
the resolution of January J. if alid' mas
the effect of abolishing the offices OF
members of this committee.
1--WE think it unnecessary to pass upon
the general question of the power OF
board of tfreeholders to reconsider acuon
which is ,iudiciai.or quasi judicial in It's
kusture. This question has been recently
sbefore the supreme court and the power
Ito reconsider an appointment at the same
or an adjourned meeting has been afhrm-
ed. Stiles V. Lambereyille, W Atiantle'
28s. This case is distinguished py the
fact that the resolution of January l,
was adopted by a different board from
that which adopted the prior resolution
The terms of fourteen members OF Inc
board of 1905, a, majority OF the whoie'
expired at noon on January L. The res
olutaon in question was adopted oy
twelve members Of the new board, VINO
met at noon on that lay, in the absence
of their eleven associates.
II has been held in the Supreme Court
that the right of a deliberatiye body 10
reconsider its vote in matters OF TINS
kind, ceases when a final deermlnauon
mas been reached. With this view we
agree We think further that the de-
Termination reached is final as soon at
least sthe existence of the body to
which the law entrusts the decision
ends. Subsequent adverse action by
different body is repeal rather than re-
consideration The Legislature in the
present case has entrusted the decision
of the question of fact to one board OF
freeholders: it has not required the con-
current action of two successive boards
Although only portion of the board
of freeholders goes out of Office each
year, the body itself is not continuous
body. The reasons which led to the
decision that the Senate of New Jersey
is not continuous bedy, are quite as
.cogent in the case of board of chosen
freeholders.
'.The fact that the board of 1905 had
rule which authorized reconsidera-
ifiop at the 5nextzregular meeting, is i'm
pcrtant.s That was mere rule of pro
fcedufe and affected the action of thG
board of 1905 only. The regular meet
ing rvferred to in the rule could only
be regular meeting of the board which
was governed by the, rule. Even if the
same rule were adopted by the new
Eboard, the effect could not ibe to require
more than the legislature had seen fit
to exact
sit was argued that because the mu-
nicipal corporation created by the legis-
Flature to administer the .affairs of coun-
Ties is perpetual. the body which actu-
ally exercises those powers is also per-
petuai: bit the. distinction is as clear as
the distinction betwco1 a private corpo-
ration and its board Of sdirectors and
was recognized in the very case cited by
counsel upon the argument. The judg-
ment under review must be affirmed with
costs.'
Peter w. Stagg appeared for the
plaintiff in error and Ernest Koester
and Edmund w. Wakelee for the de-
fendant in error. The case was argued
June 10.
(I.iTdrav Taa%J,Sr~