Knoble v. Borough of Hawthorne

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Knoble v. Borough of Hawthorne

142 A. 550, 6 N.J. Misc. 657, 1928 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 171

DecidedJune 22, 1928

StatusPublished

This text of 142 A. 550 (Knoble v. Borough of Hawthorne) 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

Knoble v. Borough of Hawthorne, 142 A. 550, 6 N.J. Misc. 657, 1928 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 171 (N.J. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The writ in this ease brings up for review resolutions of the commissioners of the borough of Hawthorne adopted December 9th, 1927, designating Peter Mason as the director of the department of public affairs and the department of public safety in the place and stead of the prosecutor.

The whole question here is whether or not chapter 330, Pamph. L. 1927, authorized such action. That act is a supplement to the Walsh act (Pamph. L. 1911, ch. 221), and was adopted as the result of the finding of the Court of Errors and Appeals in Oliver v. Daly et al., 4 N. J. Adv. R. 1833.

Such legislation permits and authorizes the action taken as evidenced by the resolution under review. The result is that such action and the resolutions are affirmed and the writ of certiorari is dismissed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

The writ in this ease brings up for review resolutions of the commissioners of the borough of Hawthorne adopted December 9th, 1927, designating Peter Mason as the director of the department of public affairs and the department of public safety in the place and stead of the prosecutor.

The whole question here is whether or not chapter 330, Pamph. L. 1927, authorized such action. That act is a supplement to the Walsh act (Pamph. L. 1911, ch. 221), and was adopted as the result of the finding of the Court of Errors and Appeals in Oliver v. Daly et al., 4 N. J. Adv. R. 1833.

Such legislation permits and authorizes the action taken as evidenced by the resolution under review. The result is that such action and the resolutions are affirmed and the writ of certiorari is dismissed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 A. 550, 6 N.J. Misc. 657, 1928 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knoble-v-borough-of-hawthorne-nj-1928.