Court Opinion

ID: 9702220
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:01:30.543605+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:35.062181
License: Public Domain

*38Burling, J.
(concurring). I concur in the conclusions of the majority to affirm, with the following exception.
I do not agree with the conclusion that the cards included in the appraisal report and subject of the present controversy were not public records. They were, in the language of the statute (R. S. 47:3-1) “written or printed * * * documents * * * .which (are) the property of the * * * municipality has received * * * for filing * * *.” They were filed with the township clerk and, as the opinion states, they were the property of the municipality. Further, no “contrary intention clearly appears” (R. S. 47:3-1), i. e., no intention not to make them public records clearly appears, as was the situation in Stack v. Borelli, 3 N. J. Super. 546 (Law Div. 1949).
Mr. Justice Heher joins in this memorandum.
I-Ieher and Burling, JJ., concurring in result.
For affirmance — -Chief Justice Vanderbilt, and Justices I-Ieher, Oliphant, Wachenpbld and Burling — -5.
For reversal — None.