It averred that those portions of the said acts which purported to give such a priority had the effect to deprive the complainant of its property in the mortgaged premises without due process of law, and were in violation of the Constitution of the United States and that of New Jersey, and the complainant prayed for a foreclosure and sale of the lot in question as against all the defendants.

The regulations extend to many details, making provision for extra charges to certain kinds of establishments, providing penalties for misuse of the water, etc.

The complainant and the city authorities entered into a stipulation to the effect that the allegations of fact in the bill were to be taken as true; that in the assessment of the water rents, interest, and penalties, all the requirements of the act "to reorganize the local government of Jersey City," passed March 31, 1871, and the supplements thereto, had been complied with, and that the only question to be determined by the court was whether, upon the facts stated in the bill, the water rents and interest and penalties mentioned therein, or any of them, were liens upon the property in question prior to the lien of the complainant's mortgages.

The only clause of the Constitution supposed to be violated is that portion of the Fourteenth Amendment which declares that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

The law which authorized these coercive measures gave to mortgagees and judgment creditors the right to pay the rents and to have the benefit of the lien thereof, so that it was in their own power to protect themselves from any such penalties and accumulations of interest.

That which is given for the preservation or betterment of the common pledge is in natural equity fairly entitled to the first rank in the tableau of claims.

We are not prepared to say that a legislative act giving preference to such liens even over those already created by mortgage, judgment, or attachment, would be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.

But as the present case does not call for an opinion on this point, it is properly reserved for consideration when it necessarily arises.The decree of the New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals was affirmed.