Estate v. City of Orange
| Decision Date | 04 November 1892 |
| Citation | 55 N.J.L. 99,25 A. 268 |
| Parties | ESTATE ex rel. TETRAULT v. CITY OF ORANGE. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Application by the state on the relation of Francis J. E. Tetrault for a writ of mandamus to compel the city of Orange to pay relator his salary as city physician. Rule discharged.
Argued June term, 1892, before Werts and Dixon, JJ.
Mr. Price, for relator.
Mr. Lightpipe, for defendant.
The relator applies for a mandamus directing the city of Orange to pay him the salary attached to the office of city physician, for a time subsequent to October 17, 1892, on which day the common council of the city passed a resolution declaring vacant that office, previously held by him. He admits that he was appointed by the council under the eighth section of the city charter, (P. L. 1869, p. 182,) which enacts that officers appointed there under shall continue in office until the office shall be declared vacant; but he insists that by force of a statute approved February 17, 1892, (P. L. 1892, p. 24.) he became entitled to hold the office for a term of three years thereafter, while the city contends that the statute is unconstitutional, as special legislation regulating the internal affairs of towns. Upon this ground alone is the application for mandamus resisted. The statute undoubtedly attempts to regulate the internal affairs of the cities to which it relates by fixing the official term of city physicians therein at three years, and forbidding any diminution of their salary, and it applies only to city physicians whose term of office was not previously fixed under authority of law. The question is, does this restriction render the act special? The cities which are excluded from the operation of the act are Paterson and Trenton, whose charters expressly provide for city physicians with a term of one year; Rahway, Bayonne, and rassaic, whose charters (P. L. 1865, p. 499, §§ 18, 19; P. L. 1872, p. 686, §§ 23, 35; and P. L.1873, p. 484, § 9) warrant the appointment of such officers with a like term; and perhaps some other cities. The cities which are embraced within the scope of the act appear to be Newark, Jersey City, Camden, New Brunswick, Elizabeth, Orange, Hoboken, and probably others, by whose charters the tenure of such offices seems to last only during the pleasure of the appointing power. In 1889 two legislative attempts were made to have a definite term assigned to the office of...
To continue reading
Request your trial