Sutherland v. Board of Street & Water Commissioners

39 A. 710, 61 N.J.L. 436, 32 Vroom 436, 1898 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 120
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedFebruary 15, 1898
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 39 A. 710 (Sutherland v. Board of Street & Water Commissioners) 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
Sutherland v. Board of Street & Water Commissioners, 39 A. 710, 61 N.J.L. 436, 32 Vroom 436, 1898 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 120 (N.J. 1898).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Dixon, J.

Prior to May 12th, 1897, the relator was-assistant assessment clerk in the office of the board of street and water commissioners of Jersey City. His position was under the control of that board, and on the day named tlier board passed the following resolution:

[437]*437Resolved, that for the purpose of economizing in the salary list in the bureau of engineering and survey, the position designated and known as assistant assessment clerk be and is hereby permanently abolished, and the duties thereof transferred to and required to be performed by the assessment clerk; further resolved, that the services of Gr. Frank Sutherland as such assistant assessment clerk be and are hereby dispensed with and terminated.”

The relator now asks for a mandamus, directing the board to rescind that resolution, because he is an honorably discharged Union soldier, and the act of March 31st, 1897 (Pamph. L., p. 142), forbids the abolition of an office held by such a person “for the purpose of effecting his dismissal,” and entitles him to a remedy by mandamus for righting the wrong.

But it is settled that statutes of this nature are not designed to' prevent the abolition of an office and the transfer of its duties to another official, when such a course is taken bona fide for economical reasons or for the promotion of greater efficiency in the public service. Evans v. Freeholders of Hudson, 24 Vroom 585; Newark v. Lyon, Id. 632; Boylan v. Newark, 29 Id. 133.

According to its terms the resolution now before us was taken “for the purpose of economizing,” and the evidence does not lead us to the conclusion that the board was actuated by an ulterior motive such as this statute condemns.

The rule to show cause should be discharged.

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

Related

Stone v. Old Bridge Tp.
521 A.2d 1329 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1987)
McCartney v. Franco
209 A.2d 329 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1965)
Viemeister v. Bd. of Education of Prospect Park
68 A.2d 768 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1949)
Garvey v. City of Lowell
85 N.E. 182 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1908)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
39 A. 710, 61 N.J.L. 436, 32 Vroom 436, 1898 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 120, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sutherland-v-board-of-street-water-commissioners-nj-1898.