The Morris County chronicle. [volume] (Morristown, N.J.) 1877-1915, 1908-06-16
DEcIsIoN.

LDlfteN FEBRUARY 1Gfiu, I0UC. ~
cided, Juue, 1908 Syllabus.
DECISION.
/. The act OF 1909 to authoriz in
towns 10 construct, ope'
rate aud maintain n system OF sewers
(P. l.. 1909, 37fl applies to any town
which may be Incorporated at the
time proceedings under the act are
begun.
3 I'll lille of chapter 124 Of the
laws OF 1909 (f'. Il. 1909, 37D sufficient
ly expresses the object OF the act, i'll
cludlug the authority to Construct
disposal works beyond the
limits OF the town.
8. Chapter 124 OF the laws of 1902
Up. l.. 1902, 371) is not invalid because
Of the power gwen to erect sewage
disposal works within the bounds OF
another municipality.
4. Ii is not necessary for an incorpo-
rated town which is acting under the
sewer act OF 1902 (P. L 1902, 37l) 20
secure the consent of another Muni-
TO the erection of savage uIs-
posal works within the territorial
limits Of he latter. nor Is such cou-
sent made necessary by the act oil
100? (P. l.. 1907, 707.)
5. The action OF a sewerage board
of an incorpora ted town under chap
ter 1874 OF the act of 1902 (P. j.. 1909,
37I) is only preliminary 10 legisla-
tive action by the governing body OF
the town and by the voters at special
election: and the determinations OF
the sewerage BOARD fixing AS site
Tor disposal works, iand in wnicn a
member OF The board rs Interested, il
not voidable in the absence of actual
fraud.
6. The prosecutors waited until
after the plan of the sewerage board
including the location of disposal
plant, had been submitted to and APP
proved by the voters a t "a SPECIAL cleo
ton; held that they cannot be PEI
mitted to question by certiorari a
contract because it provides for the
erection OF a disposal plant at the
place fixed, upon the ground that the
town has not yet acquired title. when
the law authorizes the acquisition OF
the title by condemnation.
OF Hanover VS.. Town ol
Morristown ct. ais.
The questions raised in this case
are the same as in Fre:inghuysen vs..
Morrisrown just decided. SO tar AS
those questions are open to the pres
ent prosecutor. For the reason stated
in the opinion III that case, the pro
ceedings are affirmed with costs.
NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT,
February Term. 1908,
Branch Court No. SS.
George G.. Frelinghuysen, ct. al. VS..
Town OF Morrisfown, ct. al. Sub
mitted February Term, 1908. De-
cided June, 1908.
CERTIoRARL
Before Justices Garrison, Swayze
and Trenchard.
Vreeland, King, Wilson and Lind
abury and PitDey. Hardin and Skin
ner for Prosecutors.
r. Wayne Parker. Cortlandt Par
ker and Chauncey q. Parker, for the
OF Hanover.
Edward K Mills for Town of Nor
ristown.
Willard W. Cutler for Board OF
OF Morristowu.
The opinion of the Court was de-
llvered by
SwAYzE, j.
The writ IN this case has brought
here for review the proceedings OF
the Board OF Sewerage OF the Town
of MorristOwn for the construction
OF sewerage disposal works for that
within the bounds OF
the Township oi Hanover. The pro.
ceedings were taken under the Pct OF
1902. (P. L. 1909, 37l.)
The first objection TO be cons idered
is the constitutionality of the act. l.
is assailed first as q special act be-
cause it is said to apply only TO
towns Incorporated prior TO its pas
sage. This contention is based on
the first sentence of the act, which
makes it applicable TO any town
winch has been Incorporated under
any general or special law We
think the Interpretation sought to be
put on these words is too narrow
Tue language may naturally be con-
sErued as including any town which
has been incorporated at the time
proceedings are begun. In butler v.
Montclair, 36 Vroom. 426, we sustain
ed the constiGutionalitv of an act
which applied only 10 tow rs when
ever there has heretofore been con-
structed' an outlet or connecting
sewer. 1t was held that the word
heretofore related not to the time Ut
the passage OF the act but TO the time
OF incorporation of the town whether
before or after that date, and earlier
cases were relied on to justify thar
latitude OF construction. The pre-
sent case is well within that rule
The act is assailed also because by
its title it relates only to Incorporated
towns, and does not therefore point
TO an intention To legIslate with re-
ference TO the construction OF dis
pOsal works IN townships. This con-
tentIon is answered bv our decision
in Newark v. Orange, 26 Vroom. 514,
where We held that All act entitled
IAN act 10 provide Tor drainage and
sewerage III cities OF this state au
thorlzed ciIies 10 carry their sewers
through adjacent townships to tide
water. The court SAID 1T is a mat
terror common knowledge that there
are cities m the state which have not
within their limits an available out
let for sewage. For such cities an act
would be futile which did not au-
thorlze the entrance upon adjacent
territory. The title OF this act max
ing provisions for the relief OF al
ci les clearly suggests that IL will bt
so framed as % furnish all the means
AND insfgumentalities and situations
to which y extends, II must be pre-
sumed that the law maker will ss
ICoNuNUED on EIGHTH PAGE.