La Corte v. County of Union

Supreme Court of New Jersey

La Corte v. County of Union

1 A.2d 424, 121 N.J.L. 158, 1938 N.J. LEXIS 413

DecidedSeptember 16, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.2d 424 (La Corte v. County of Union) 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

La Corte v. County of Union, 1 A.2d 424, 121 N.J.L. 158, 1938 N.J. LEXIS 413 (N.J. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff sued to recover deductions withheld from his statutory salary as judge of the Pirst Judicial District Court of the county of Union from February 1st, 1933, to April 30th, 1934. Defendant’s answer was stricken upon the ground that it did not present a meritorious defense; and judgment for plaintiff was summarily entered. Defendant appeals.

The deductions during the year 1933 were in accordance with a consent signed by plaintiff. The deductions thereafter were in accordance with a resolution passed by the board of *159 chosen freeholders under the purported authority of chapter 17, Pamph. L. 1933, as amended by chapter 446, Pamph. L. 1933, and under circumstances comparable to those recited in our opinion in the case of LeRoy Vander Burgh v. County of Bergen, reported in 120 N. J. L. 444. The determination herein is controlled by the decision in the cited case.

The judgment below will be reversed.

For affirmance — None.

For reversal — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Porter, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, WolfsKeil, Rafferty, Walker, JJ. 16.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff sued to recover deductions withheld from his statutory salary as judge of the Pirst Judicial District Court of the county of Union from February 1st, 1933, to April 30th, 1934. Defendant’s answer was stricken upon the ground that it did not present a meritorious defense; and judgment for plaintiff was summarily entered. Defendant appeals.

The deductions during the year 1933 were in accordance with a consent signed by plaintiff. The deductions thereafter were in accordance with a resolution passed by the board of *159 chosen freeholders under the purported authority of chapter 17, Pamph. L. 1933, as amended by chapter 446, Pamph. L. 1933, and under circumstances comparable to those recited in our opinion in the case of LeRoy Vander Burgh v. County of Bergen, reported in 120 N. J. L. 444. The determination herein is controlled by the decision in the cited case.

The judgment below will be reversed.

For affirmance — None.

For reversal — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Porter, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, WolfsKeil, Rafferty, Walker, JJ. 16.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.2d 424, 121 N.J.L. 158, 1938 N.J. LEXIS 413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/la-corte-v-county-of-union-nj-1938.