Browne v. King

106 A. 893, 91 N.J.L. 317, 1917 N.J. LEXIS 253
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided October 11, 1917·Published

Opinion

Pee Curiam.

By this appeal the appellant seeks to bring before this court the order of the Supreme Court discharging its rule to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue requiring the respondents to pay to the appellant the salary of the health officer of the city of Paterson.

[319]*319Passing the question whether proceedings in mandamus should be reviewed by appeal or by writ of error, it is clear that such appeal, being in lieu of a writ of error, lies only in ease the appellant would have been entitled to that writ prior to July 4th, 1912. Pamph. L. 1912, p. 377, § 25.

It is, however, settled that a writ of error does not lie to remove into this court the order by the Supreme Court discharging a rule to show cause why a mandamus should not issue excepting in cases decided in the Supreme Court upon the constitutionality of a statute. Neptune Township v. Mammon, 73 N. J. L. 816. The present case not being within this exception the appeal must be dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Browne v. King, 106 A. 893, 91 N.J.L. 317, 1917 N.J. LEXIS 253 (N.J. 1917).

106 A. 893 (Browne v. King) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.