1. A municipality may enter into a contract with a railroad company for the improvement of facilities, by virtue of the provisions of the act concerning railroads. Section 30, as amended by Pamph. L. 1925, p. 377.
2. Section 32 of the Crimes act (2 Comp. Stat., p. 1755) forbidding officials of a municipality from having any interest in a contract of the municipality which provides for an improvement to be made at public expense, has no application to an improvement, the cost of which is to be paid entirely by a railroad company.
3. It must clearly appear that a member or members of a common council who voted for the passage of an ordinance had such an interest in its passage as would disqualify them from impartial action in a quasi-judicial act. There is an exception to the disqualification rule, that if there be no means of proceeding, if the judge is disqualified, he may take such cognizance of the matter as may be absolutely necessary.
4. Ordinarily, to make an ordinance of a common council a valid enactment, it must be approved by the mayor, and in the absence of proof that his action was unduly influenced, it will be presumed to have been impartial.
5. Where the passage of an ordinance authorizing the closing of a portion of certain streets incidental to the carrying out of a public improvement was highly advantageous to the municipality, and greatly desired by the public generally, the desire to attain that object was not an unlawful inducement to such action.
PER CURIAM.
The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Mr. Justice Case in the Supreme Court.
For affirmance — BODINE, DONGES, HETFIELD, DEAR, WELLS, WOLFSKEIL, JJ. 6.
For reversal — THE CHANCELLOR, HEHER, PERSKIE, RAFFERTY, JJ. 4.