Hartigan v. Hudson County Park Commission

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Hartigan v. Hudson County Park Commission

158 A. 118, 10 N.J. Misc. 43, 1931 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 17

DecidedDecember 15, 1931

StatusPublished

This text of 158 A. 118 (Hartigan v. Hudson County Park Commission) 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

Hartigan v. Hudson County Park Commission, 158 A. 118, 10 N.J. Misc. 43, 1931 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 17 (N.J. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Feb Curiam.

The prosecutor was a foreman of laborers employed by the old Hudson county boulevard commission. He seeks to review the action of the new Hudson county park commission in abolishing the position which he occupied, claiming that he had a right to the office because he held an exempt fireman’s certificate.

The stipulation of facts and the record returned with the [44]*44writ are too attenuated for us to determine the prosecutor’s right to the possession of the office claimed, if such it be. Loper v. Millville, 53 N. J. L. 362.

In so far as the writ seeks to attack the existence of the defendant commission, it is unnecessary for us to say more than that the principal questions suggested have been passed upon in McCarthy v. Walter, 107 N. J. L. 223.

The writ will therefore be dismissed.

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

Feb Curiam.

The prosecutor was a foreman of laborers employed by the old Hudson county boulevard commission. He seeks to review the action of the new Hudson county park commission in abolishing the position which he occupied, claiming that he had a right to the office because he held an exempt fireman’s certificate.

The stipulation of facts and the record returned with the [44]*44writ are too attenuated for us to determine the prosecutor’s right to the possession of the office claimed, if such it be. Loper v. Millville, 53 N. J. L. 362.

In so far as the writ seeks to attack the existence of the defendant commission, it is unnecessary for us to say more than that the principal questions suggested have been passed upon in McCarthy v. Walter, 107 N. J. L. 223.

The writ will therefore be dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 A. 118, 10 N.J. Misc. 43, 1931 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 17, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartigan-v-hudson-county-park-commission-nj-1931.