Clayton v. Board of Chosen Freeholders

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Clayton v. Board of Chosen Freeholders

127 A. 37, 3 N.J. Misc. 46, 1924 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 9

DecidedDecember 31, 1924

StatusPublished

This text of 127 A. 37 (Clayton v. Board of Chosen Freeholders) 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

Clayton v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 127 A. 37, 3 N.J. Misc. 46, 1924 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 9 (N.J. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

A rule to show cause was allowed in this case, directed to the board of freeholders of Monmouth county, to1 show canse why a peremptory or alternative writ,of mandamus should not issue commanding the said board to pay a voucher of the relator for $250, being three months5 salary, as the physician of the common jail of Monmouth county. The relator, Dr. John O. Clayton, was appointed as such by the sheriff of the county on November 1st, 1923. The question involved is, who has the right to make such appointment? It is conceded there is no statute giving the sheriff expressly such power, and we have been unable to' find any. The sheriff has [47]*47uo such power unless it is conferred by authority of the legislature. We think he has no' such power. A writ of mandamus will therefore be denied, with costs, and it is so ordered.

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

Per Curiam.

A rule to show cause was allowed in this case, directed to the board of freeholders of Monmouth county, to1 show canse why a peremptory or alternative writ,of mandamus should not issue commanding the said board to pay a voucher of the relator for $250, being three months5 salary, as the physician of the common jail of Monmouth county. The relator, Dr. John O. Clayton, was appointed as such by the sheriff of the county on November 1st, 1923. The question involved is, who has the right to make such appointment? It is conceded there is no statute giving the sheriff expressly such power, and we have been unable to' find any. The sheriff has [47]*47uo such power unless it is conferred by authority of the legislature. We think he has no' such power. A writ of mandamus will therefore be denied, with costs, and it is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A. 37, 3 N.J. Misc. 46, 1924 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 9, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clayton-v-board-of-chosen-freeholders-nj-1924.