Fitch v. Smith

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Fitch v. Smith

34 A. 1058, 57 N.J.L. 526, 28 Vroom 526, 1895 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 84

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedFebruary 15, 1895

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 34 A. 1058 (Fitch v. Smith) 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

Fitch v. Smith, 34 A. 1058, 57 N.J.L. 526, 28 Vroom 526, 1895 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 84 (N.J. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Dixon, J.

Assuming for present purposes that the position of principal' of a public school is, as the relator insists, [530]*530a public office, still it appears that when the relator was chosen to that office by the former board of trustees, the office was held by an incumbent whose-term would not end until after the expiration of that board and the organization of a new board pursuant to the act of May 25th, 1894. Pamph. L., p. 506. Such a choice could give the relator no title to the office, as the power of appointment belonged to the board which would be in existence when the office became vacant. Bownes v. Meehan, 16 Vroom 189.

There is nothing in the letter of the county superintendent which can entitle the relator to the remedy now sought. Buren v. Albertson, 25 Vroom 72.

Leave to file an information in the nature of quo warranto should be denied, and the rule to show cause is discharged, 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

Dixon, J.

Assuming for present purposes that the position of principal' of a public school is, as the relator insists, [530]*530a public office, still it appears that when the relator was chosen to that office by the former board of trustees, the office was held by an incumbent whose-term would not end until after the expiration of that board and the organization of a new board pursuant to the act of May 25th, 1894. Pamph. L., p. 506. Such a choice could give the relator no title to the office, as the power of appointment belonged to the board which would be in existence when the office became vacant. Bownes v. Meehan, 16 Vroom 189.

There is nothing in the letter of the county superintendent which can entitle the relator to the remedy now sought. Buren v. Albertson, 25 Vroom 72.

Leave to file an information in the nature of quo warranto should be denied, and the rule to show cause is discharged, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A. 1058, 57 N.J.L. 526, 28 Vroom 526, 1895 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 84, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fitch-v-smith-nj-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack