Murphy v. Board of Commissioners of Newark

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Murphy v. Board of Commissioners of Newark

195 A. 339, 119 N.J.L. 163, 1937 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 215

DecidedNovember 9, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 195 A. 339 (Murphy v. Board of Commissioners of Newark) 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

Murphy v. Board of Commissioners of Newark, 195 A. 339, 119 N.J.L. 163, 1937 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 215 (N.J. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is a companion case to Nos. 237 and 239 of the present term. Subsequent to the proceedings brought up by the writs in those cases, the hoard of commissioners of the city of Newark adopted ordinances creating the hoard of assessment for local improvements and the board of assessment and revision of taxes, and then proceeded to appoint certain persons as members of those boards. These persons are in possession of the offices. The present case is on rule to show cause why a writ of certiorari should not issue lo review the resolutions making these appointments. The substance of the prosecutor’s contention is that he, as director of the department of revenue and finance, had the power to make these appointments rather than the whole board. He attempted to exercise this power and appointed other persons to fill the offices mentioned.

*164 We are of the opinion that this case in its essence is an attempt to challenge the right of persons to hold public offices of which they are now in possession. Eor the reasons stated in Murphy v. Ellenstein et al., 119 N. J. L. 159, of the present term, this may be done only on direct attack by quo warranto and not indirectly on ceriiorari.

The rule to show cause is dismissed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

This is a companion case to Nos. 237 and 239 of the present term. Subsequent to the proceedings brought up by the writs in those cases, the hoard of commissioners of the city of Newark adopted ordinances creating the hoard of assessment for local improvements and the board of assessment and revision of taxes, and then proceeded to appoint certain persons as members of those boards. These persons are in possession of the offices. The present case is on rule to show cause why a writ of certiorari should not issue lo review the resolutions making these appointments. The substance of the prosecutor’s contention is that he, as director of the department of revenue and finance, had the power to make these appointments rather than the whole board. He attempted to exercise this power and appointed other persons to fill the offices mentioned.

*164 We are of the opinion that this case in its essence is an attempt to challenge the right of persons to hold public offices of which they are now in possession. Eor the reasons stated in Murphy v. Ellenstein et al., 119 N. J. L. 159, of the present term, this may be done only on direct attack by quo warranto and not indirectly on ceriiorari.

The rule to show cause is dismissed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

195 A. 339, 119 N.J.L. 163, 1937 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-board-of-commissioners-of-newark-nj-1937.