State ex rel. Conklin v. Jersey City

Supreme Court of New Jersey

State ex rel. Conklin v. Jersey City

40 A. 631, 62 N.J.L. 168, 33 Vroom 168, 1898 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 67

DecidedJune 13, 1898

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A. 631 (State ex rel. Conklin v. Jersey City) 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

State ex rel. Conklin v. Jersey City, 40 A. 631, 62 N.J.L. 168, 33 Vroom 168, 1898 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 67 (N.J. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

[169]*169The opinion of the court was delivered by

Garrison, J.

The relator, a Union veteran soldier, asks for a mandamus to compel the proper authorities of Jersey City “to reinstate and appoint him to the position of permanent truckman in the fire department ” of that city. As to his reinstatement, that is impossible, since he never held the place and hence could not have been discharged. He held a position of a temporary character under the act of March 27th, 1893. Pamph. L., p. 467; Gen. Stat., p. 1526. By the express terms of this statute this position ceased to exist upon the creation of the very office he now seeks. The earlier act is not repealed; it is executed.

As to the demand for appointment to the new position created by the later act, the relator’s sole reliance is upon the statute of March 31st, 1897. Pamph. L., p. 142. His contention in this respect is that this act entitles him to “preferment” to the place in question. 'Without discussing the meaning to be given to this word in its context, or the validity of the act itself, it is enough to say that it does not extend to the office or position sought by the relator. By the title of this statute its operation is confined to “ the public service of the State of Hew Jersey.” This being so, the body of the act may not further extend its provisions to municipal offices. Hendrickson v. Fries, 16 Vroom 555.

The rule to show cause will be dismissed, with costs.

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

[169]*169The opinion of the court was delivered by

Garrison, J.

The relator, a Union veteran soldier, asks for a mandamus to compel the proper authorities of Jersey City “to reinstate and appoint him to the position of permanent truckman in the fire department ” of that city. As to his reinstatement, that is impossible, since he never held the place and hence could not have been discharged. He held a position of a temporary character under the act of March 27th, 1893. Pamph. L., p. 467; Gen. Stat., p. 1526. By the express terms of this statute this position ceased to exist upon the creation of the very office he now seeks. The earlier act is not repealed; it is executed.

As to the demand for appointment to the new position created by the later act, the relator’s sole reliance is upon the statute of March 31st, 1897. Pamph. L., p. 142. His contention in this respect is that this act entitles him to “preferment” to the place in question. 'Without discussing the meaning to be given to this word in its context, or the validity of the act itself, it is enough to say that it does not extend to the office or position sought by the relator. By the title of this statute its operation is confined to “ the public service of the State of Hew Jersey.” This being so, the body of the act may not further extend its provisions to municipal offices. Hendrickson v. Fries, 16 Vroom 555.

The rule to show cause will be dismissed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A. 631, 62 N.J.L. 168, 33 Vroom 168, 1898 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 67, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-conklin-v-jersey-city-nj-1898.