In Re Atlantic City

New Jersey Superior Court App Division

In Re Atlantic City

65 A.2d 552, 3 N.J. Super. 62, 1949 N.J. Super. LEXIS 878

CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

DecidedApril 6, 1949

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 65 A.2d 552 (In Re Atlantic City) 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

In Re Atlantic City, 65 A.2d 552, 3 N.J. Super. 62, 1949 N.J. Super. LEXIS 878 (N.J. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an appeal from the refusal of the Honorable Frank T. Lloyd, one of the judges of the Superior Court, to appoint a commissioner to take testimony in Illinois as a step in an investigation into the affairs of Atlantic City which was begun last spring by one of the justices of the former Supreme Court, under authority of R.S. 40:6-1 et seq. The appellant, Mr. Harold W. Bennett, is an expert prosecuting the investigation under appointment by the Supreme Court Justice, and he has no other interest in the matter. His only concern is to carry out the orders of his superior. He is not even a resident of Atlantic City. The rule is fundamental that only a person aggrieved is permitted to appeal from an order or judgment of a court, Greenv. Blackwell, 32 N.J. Eq. 768 (E. A. 1880), and only a person directly affected by the action of an administrative *Page 64 body or officer may challenge it, Jersey City v. Traphagen,53 N.J.L. 434 (E. A. 1891). Mr. Bennett is not aggrieved and he has no interest in the matter, and therefore the appeal will be dismissed.

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

This is an appeal from the refusal of the Honorable Frank T. Lloyd, one of the judges of the Superior Court, to appoint a commissioner to take testimony in Illinois as a step in an investigation into the affairs of Atlantic City which was begun last spring by one of the justices of the former Supreme Court, under authority of R.S. 40:6-1 et seq. The appellant, Mr. Harold W. Bennett, is an expert prosecuting the investigation under appointment by the Supreme Court Justice, and he has no other interest in the matter. His only concern is to carry out the orders of his superior. He is not even a resident of Atlantic City. The rule is fundamental that only a person aggrieved is permitted to appeal from an order or judgment of a court, Greenv. Blackwell, 32 N.J. Eq. 768 (E. A. 1880), and only a person directly affected by the action of an administrative *Page 64 body or officer may challenge it, Jersey City v. Traphagen,53 N.J.L. 434 (E. A. 1891). Mr. Bennett is not aggrieved and he has no interest in the matter, and therefore the appeal will be dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 A.2d 552, 3 N.J. Super. 62, 1949 N.J. Super. LEXIS 878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-atlantic-city-njsuperctappdiv-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack