Worthington v. Mayor of Somers Point
Worthington v. Mayor of Somers Point
Opinion of the Court
The certiorari in this ease was allowed to review a resolution of the common council of the city of Somers Point, passed on the 13th clay of June, 1924, in form as follows: “Motion made by Mr. Hentz, duly seconded and carried, that ‘Fourth street be graded, starting at New York avenue, at a cost of not exceeding $500, and that the same be graveled the same distance, gravel to be carted by Ireland at contract price.’ ”
The prosecutor writes clown six reasons for setting aside the resolutions:
1. Because such improvement should be authorized by ordinance under article 20 of Pamph. L. 1917, pp. 319, 370.
2. The cost of grading and graveling Fourth street will exceed $500.
3. The common council did not advertise for bids. Comp. Slat., p. 1021, § 43.
4. The motion is vague and indefinite; it does not indicate whether said grading and graveling be extended in a northeasterly direction or in a southwesterly direction.
6. The motion in' divers other respects is illegal.
We think, for these reasons, the motion or resolution should be set aside. A taxpayer has a right to* know what the contemplated improvement is to cost and the exact part of Fourth street proposed to be graded and graveled.
It is set aside> with costs, so ordered.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- WILLIAM WORTHINGTON, PROSECUTOR v. THE MAYOR, ETC., OF THE CITY OF SOMERS POINT
- Status
- Published