Dobbs v. Pierce

183 A.2d 774, 76 N.J. Super. 64
CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
DecidedJuly 17, 1962
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 183 A.2d 774 (Dobbs v. Pierce) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dobbs v. Pierce, 183 A.2d 774, 76 N.J. Super. 64 (N.J. Ct. App. 1962).

Opinion

76 N.J. Super. 64 (1962)
183 A.2d 774

SAMUEL RAYMOND DOBBS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ALFRED R. PIERCE, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF CAMDEN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division.

Decided July 17, 1962.

*65 Mr. William C. Gotshalk, attorney for the plaintiff.

Mr. George E. Stransky, Jr., for the defendants.

SCHALICK, J.S.C.

Plaintiff brings this action in lieu of prerogative writs to establish his right to the office of the city assessor of the City of Camden, alleging tenure as an honorably discharged veteran. The plaintiff received his honorable discharge from the Army of the United States on December 15, 1918.

On January 20, 1938 George E. Brunner, Mayor and Director of Department of Revenue and Finance, appointed, by letter, the plaintiff Dobbs "a member of the Board of Commissioners of the Assessment of Taxes of the City of Camden, New Jersey, such appointment to be effective Friday, January 21st, 1938, at a salary of $2400. per annum less the usual deductions." The letter concluded, "You will report for duty at 9:00 A.M. on the effective date to Mr. Maurice Clyman and Mr. Harry Langenbein, the members previously appointed by me to this Board." The plaintiff, receiving no other appointments, continued to hold the office until July 1, 1961, when he received notice that the board of assessors had been abolished.

At the time of the plaintiff's appointment the City of Camden had a commission form of government which was established in April 1923. R.S. 40:70-1 et seq. On July 1, 1961 the City of Camden changed to Mayor-Council Plan B of the Optional Municipal Charter Law. N.J.S.A. 40:69A-49 et seq.

At the organization meeting on July 1, 1961 an ordinance was passed adopting an administrative code for the City *66 of Camden. Under Article 4, Department of Administration and Finance, the ordinance provides:

"4.7 Division of Assessments. Within the department of administration and finance there shall be a division of assessments, the head of which shall be the city assessor. The division shall:

(a) Have, perform and discharge all the functions, powers and duties prescribed by law for a municipal assessor;

(b) Make assessments for benefits for local improvement, and for that purpose to have and exercise the powers and duties of a board of assessment for local improvements as provided by law;

(c) Maintain adequate assessment records of each separate parcel of real property assessed or exempted and establish and maintain such files, records and procedures as may be required for the valuation and assessment of personal property pursuant to law;

(d) Maintain a current tax map of the city as a public record, and cause to be recorded thereon all changes in ownership or character of the real property assessed."

The defendant Clyman, who was not a veteran, was appointed the city assessor, and it was stipulated that Clyman later resigned on March 15, 1962, and he was succeeded by Patrick Corbett, also made a defendant.

The plaintiff relies on the protection of tenure of office as a veteran, alleging that he was originally appointed without designation of a term, and that he served until July 1, 1961, without any reappointments subsequent to his original appointment. He served with two other members on the board of assessments during all of his service, and at the same time, while serving as one of the board of assessments, he was acting supervisor of the Bureau of City Property as the assistant to the Director of Public Works from February 28, 1936 to July 1, 1961.

The status of the plaintiff under any version is affected by the abolition of the board of assessments consisting of three members, and the creation of the office of city assessor for one person under the ordinance adopted by the newly organized government.

The transitional provision of N.J.S.A. 40:69A-207 sets forth:

*67 "At 12 o'clock noon on the effective date of an optional plan adopted pursuant to this act, all offices then existing in such municipality shall be abolished and the terms of all elected and appointed officers shall immediately cease and determine; provided, that nothing in this section shall be construed to abolish the office or terminate the term of office of any member of the board of education, trustees of the free public library, commissioners of a local housing authority, municipal magistrates or of any official or employee now protected by any tenure of office law, or of any policeman, fireman, teacher, principal or school superintendent whether or not protected by a tenure of office law. If the municipality is operating under the provisions of Title 11 of the Revised Statutes (Civil Service) at the time of the adoption of an optional plan under this act, nothing herein contained shall affect the tenure of office of any person holding any position or office coming within the provisions of said Title 11 as it applies to said officers and employees. If the municipal clerk has, prior to the effective date of the optional plan, acquired a protected tenure of office pursuant to law, he shall become the first municipal clerk under the optional plan.

Provision for officers and for the organization and administration of the municipal government under the optional plan may be made by resolution pending the adoption of ordinances, but any such resolution shall expire not later than 30 days after the effective date of the optional plan."

The court is required to give a liberal construction by statutory direction, N.J.S.A. 40:69A-30:

"The general grant of municipal power contained in this article is intended to confer the greatest power of local self-government consistent with the Constitution of this State. Any specific enumeration of municipal powers contained in this act or in any other general law shall not be construed in any way to limit the general description of power contained in this article, and any such specifically enumerated municipal powers shall be construed as in addition and supplementary to the powers conferred in general terms by this article. All grants of municipal power to municipalities governed by an optional plan under this act, whether in the form of specific enumeration or general terms, shall be liberally construed, as required by the Constitution of this State, in favor of the municipality."

The Supreme Court, in Myers v. Cedar Grove Township, 36 N.J. 51, 57 (1961), in considering the same Charter Act, held:

*68 "In view of the above provisions, it is clear the Legislature intended to centralize maximum powers in the municipality, giving the Council and Manager the widest possible authority to determine the organization of departments and to control personnel; that the new municipal government should not be hampered in its organization by a variety of holdover boards, bodies and departments. Of course, this authority is subject to the applicable provisions of `general law,' N.J.S.A. 40:69A-26."

The evidence in this case shows that the assessments under the board were made by all three members, and the appointing officer was aware of this procedure. Under the present ordinance, the duties of the office rest with one person. In municipal government, the difference between a board of assessments and an assessor is such a major one it needs no definition.

The board was abolished and the terms of office of its members expired with it. The City of Camden abolished the board and the office held by the plaintiff.

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

Related

Myers v. Worrick
440 A.2d 72 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1981)
Ream v. Kuhlman
270 A.2d 712 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1970)
McCartney v. Franco
209 A.2d 329 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1965)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
183 A.2d 774, 76 N.J. Super. 64, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dobbs-v-pierce-njsuperctappdiv-1962.