Byrne v. City of Wildwood

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Byrne v. City of Wildwood

112 A. 305, 95 N.J.L. 287, 10 Gummere 287, 1921 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 99

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedJanuary 3, 1921

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 112 A. 305 (Byrne v. City of Wildwood) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Byrne v. City of Wildwood, 112 A. 305, 95 N.J.L. 287, 10 Gummere 287, 1921 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 99 (N.J. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Swayze, J.

The question involved is the right of tire commission of Wildwood to employ special counsel in litigation. By the resolution fixing his salary, the city solicitor is required to draw all ordinances and contracts or pass upon the same before action is taken thereon and give such legal advice as may be required by the board of commissioners. The rule that governs the present case is that established by the Court of Errors and Appeals in State, Hoxsey, v. Paterson, 39 N. J. L. 72. This justifies the employment of associate counsel in defending suits in which the city is interested, but does not allow the city commission under the [288]*288guise of such employment to withdraw and take out of the hands of the city counsel any particular case or classes of cases and to confide their management to others.

The resolution now under review was that John Harris be employed to defend certain writs of certioraii for the city. This seems to be limited to the writs of certiorari specified and is work not covered by the resolution fixing the salary of the city counsel. We think the employment of Harris was within the powers of the city commission.

Let the writ be dismissed, with costs.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Swayze, J.

The question involved is the right of tire commission of Wildwood to employ special counsel in litigation. By the resolution fixing his salary, the city solicitor is required to draw all ordinances and contracts or pass upon the same before action is taken thereon and give such legal advice as may be required by the board of commissioners. The rule that governs the present case is that established by the Court of Errors and Appeals in State, Hoxsey, v. Paterson, 39 N. J. L. 72. This justifies the employment of associate counsel in defending suits in which the city is interested, but does not allow the city commission under the [288]*288guise of such employment to withdraw and take out of the hands of the city counsel any particular case or classes of cases and to confide their management to others.

The resolution now under review was that John Harris be employed to defend certain writs of certioraii for the city. This seems to be limited to the writs of certiorari specified and is work not covered by the resolution fixing the salary of the city counsel. We think the employment of Harris was within the powers of the city commission.

Let the writ be dismissed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A. 305, 95 N.J.L. 287, 10 Gummere 287, 1921 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 99, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/byrne-v-city-of-wildwood-nj-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack