State ex rel. Searing v. Clark

Supreme Court of New Jersey

State ex rel. Searing v. Clark

55 A. 690, 69 N.J.L. 609, 40 Vroom 609, 1903 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 69

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedAugust 12, 1903

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 55 A. 690 (State ex rel. Searing v. Clark) 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. Searing v. Clark, 55 A. 690, 69 N.J.L. 609, 40 Vroom 609, 1903 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 69 (N.J. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In each of these eases the relator applies for a writ of mandamus, upon the ground that his right to it by virtue of his office is clear. The testimony shows that a contrary right is set up by the defendants. This question of right, viz., the title to the office in each case, has been argued before us. It presents a debatable question of law. So long as this question is unsettled the right of the relator to a writ of mandamus cannot be said to be clear. The contest between these individuals over the right to the office, which each claims, cannot be settled in this proceeding. The town of Dover is not a party, and hence no question concerning the rights are considered.

The relator’s application in each case is denied, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

In each of these eases the relator applies for a writ of mandamus, upon the ground that his right to it by virtue of his office is clear. The testimony shows that a contrary right is set up by the defendants. This question of right, viz., the title to the office in each case, has been argued before us. It presents a debatable question of law. So long as this question is unsettled the right of the relator to a writ of mandamus cannot be said to be clear. The contest between these individuals over the right to the office, which each claims, cannot be settled in this proceeding. The town of Dover is not a party, and hence no question concerning the rights are considered.

The relator’s application in each case is denied, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A. 690, 69 N.J.L. 609, 40 Vroom 609, 1903 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 69, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-searing-v-clark-nj-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack