State v. City Council of Camden

Supreme Court of New Jersey

State v. City Council of Camden

42 A. 837, 63 N.J.L. 200, 34 Vroom 200, 1899 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 157

DecidedFebruary 27, 1899

StatusPublished

This text of 42 A. 837 (State v. City Council of Camden) 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 v. City Council of Camden, 42 A. 837, 63 N.J.L. 200, 34 Vroom 200, 1899 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 157 (N.J. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Collins, J.

This is an attempt on the part of a prosecutor, whose only interest is that of a citizen and taxpayer, to [201]*201procure a review on certiorari of the action of the city council of Camden in seating one of its members who, at the time of the application for the writ, was in actual possession of his office. Obviously the purpose of the proceeding is to try the title of a de facto officer. This cannot be done on certiorari even by a claimant to the office, much less by a stranger. Quo warranto, and not certiorari, is the only appropriate proceeding in such a case. Henry v. City Council of Camden, 13 Vroom 335; Stites v. Freeholders of Cumberland, 29 Id. 340; Clayton v. Freeholders of Hudson, 31 Id. 364.

The writ in this case is therefore dismissed, with costs.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Collins, J.

This is an attempt on the part of a prosecutor, whose only interest is that of a citizen and taxpayer, to [201]*201procure a review on certiorari of the action of the city council of Camden in seating one of its members who, at the time of the application for the writ, was in actual possession of his office. Obviously the purpose of the proceeding is to try the title of a de facto officer. This cannot be done on certiorari even by a claimant to the office, much less by a stranger. Quo warranto, and not certiorari, is the only appropriate proceeding in such a case. Henry v. City Council of Camden, 13 Vroom 335; Stites v. Freeholders of Cumberland, 29 Id. 340; Clayton v. Freeholders of Hudson, 31 Id. 364.

The writ in this case is therefore dismissed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A. 837, 63 N.J.L. 200, 34 Vroom 200, 1899 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-city-council-of-camden-nj-1899.