Opinion
06-28-1900
INHABITANTS OF LODI TP. v. HACKENSACK IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION et al.
Ernest Koostor, for complainant John A. Bell, for defendant borough of Lodi. L. A. Campbell, for defendant borough of Hasbrouck Heights. C. W. Berdan, for defendant borough of Little Ferry.
Bill by the Inhabitants of the township of Lodi against the Hackensack Improvement Commission and others to equitably distribute a judgment among defendant municipalities. Dismissed.
Ernest Koostor, for complainant John A. Bell, for defendant borough of Lodi. L. A. Campbell, for defendant borough of Hasbrouck Heights. C. W. Berdan, for defendant borough of Little Ferry.
STEVENS, V. C.The complainant alleges in its bill that it is indebted to one Burke, who has recovered judgment against it for $1,167.54, and that the boroughs which were set off from complainant after the liability was incurred are liable in equity to contribute to the payment of this judgment. The claim cannot be sustained. There is no contract to pay alleged. There is no implied assumpsit, for the money paid by Burke was paid by him for the use of the complainant, before the defendants had come into existence. And the claim is not grounded on any principle of justice which has been sanctioned by the courts. Where there is no legislation on the subject, says Justice Clifford in Town of Mt. Pleasant v. Beckwith, 100 U. S. 525, 25 L. Ed. 699, "in case of division the old corporation owns all the public property within her new limits, and is responsible for all the debts of the corporation contracted before the act of separation was passed. Debts previously contracted must be paid entirely by the old corporation." Dill. Mun. Corp. (4th Ed.) § 188. So that, even if there had been no provision for apportionment, the bill could not have been sustained. But, in point of fact, the legislature has, by act of April 16, 1896 (Laws 1896, p. 270), provided for the division of assets and liability in the mode therein prescribed, and this act has been declared effective.
Inhabitants of Orvil Tp. v. Mayor, etc., of Borough of Woodcliff (N. J. Err. & App.) 45 Atl. 686. There is therefore not any reason whatever for coming into a court of equity. The bill should be dismissed.