58 N.J.L. 347 | N.J. | 1895
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The nineteenth section of the amendment to the “Act to establish a system of public instruction [Revision], approved March 27th, 1874,” which was approved May 25th, 1894 (Pamph. L., p. 506; Gen. Stat., p. 3060), provides that the legal voters of a school district, either at an annual meeting or at a special meeting called for that purpose, may, by the consent of a majority of those present, authorize the board of education of the district to issue bonds for these purposes:
(а) The purchase of land for school purposes.
(б) The building of a school-house or school-houses.
(c) Making additions, alterations, repairs or improvements in or upon school-houses already erected and the lands upon which they are located.
It is deemed that this specification of the purposes for which bonds may be issued limits the authority to issue bonds to those purposes. That which the board of education of the township of Cranbury proposed to submit to the legal voters at the special meeting called for September 15th, was stated in the notice of that meeting, but that which was actually submitted and assented to, is not found in that notice, but appears by the resolutions adopted and the ballots through w'hich those resolutions were assented to. The consent appears to have been that $300 for text-books, $100 for services of clerk, $100 for supplies, janitor, cleaning, &c., $1,600 for purchase of Duncan lot, $400 for fence, grading and water, $4,000 for school building and $500 for furniture, be raised by special assessment, and then that “ in order to raise imme
But if it be conceded that it is sufficiently plain that the intention was that the bonds were to issue for the purpose of meeting the last,four items of the appropriation, we are confronted with the question whether two of those items, $400 for fence, grading and water, and $500 for furniture, were within the authority of the statute. The Supreme Court deemed them to be parcel of the construction of a well-appointed school-house. We are inclined to so regard the fencing, grading and water and so also to consider any furniture which may be constructed with and permanently affixed
Our conclusion upon the points stated leads to a reversal of the judgment before us, and hence we do not deem it necessary to review the remaining questions passed upon by the Supreme Court or suggested by counsel.
For affirmance—None.
For reversal—The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Gum-mere, Lippincott, Ludlow, Mag-ie, Van Syckel, Bogert, Brown, Sims, Smith, Talman. 12.