Blore v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of Union County

• Decision Date: 05 March 1900
• Citation: 45 A. 633,61 N.J.L. 262
• Parties: BLORE v. BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF UNION COUNTY.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

45 A. 633

61 N.J.L. 262

BLORE

v. BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF UNION COUNTY.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

March 5, 1900.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error to supreme court.

Action by John C. Blore against the board of chosen freeholders of Union county.Ver diet for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.Reversed.

Sherrerd Depue, for plaintiff in error.

W. R. Codington and Craig A. Marsh, for defendant in error.

DIXON, J.In January, 1893, the board of chosen freeholders of Union county appointed the plaintiff as warden of the Union county jail for the term of five years commencing February 1, 1893.The appointment was made under the act of March 23, 1887(2 Gen. Stp. 1831), which declares that the warden shall hold office for the term of five years, and until his successor shall be appointed and qualified.The plaintiff accordingly assumed the office on February 1, 1893.On February 3, 1898, the board appointed Charles W. Dodd as warden of the jail for the term of five years from February 15, 1898, and on the day last named Dodd, having duly qualified, went to the jail, and demanded from the plaintiff possession of the office, but the plaintiff refused to surrender it, keeping the door of the jail locked to prevent Dodd's entrance.The ground of plaintiff's refusal was that, he being an honorably discharged Union soldier, his legal tenure continued, by force of the veteran act of March 31, 1897(P. L.1897, p. 142), until he was removed for incompetency or misconduct.On this contention he retained possession of the office until June 21, 1898, when he was ousted by a judgment in quo warranto proceedings Instituted by Dodd.The present suit was brought to recover the salary of the office for the period between February 15, 1898, and June 21, 1898, and at the trial in the Union circuit a verdict therefor was directed.The legality of that direction is the subject now to be considered.

The general rule of the common law as administered in England was, that a person entitled de jure to an office, and not the merely de facto incumbent of the office, had a legal right to the official emoluments.Kreitz v. Behrensmeyer (111. Sup.)36 N. E. 983.An exception to this rule was established in New Jersey by the decision of this court in Stuhr v. Curran, 44 N. J. Law, 181, where it was held that a person who had a prima facie legal title to an office, which cast upon him a public duty to assume the office and discharge its functions until by further legal proceedings his apparent title had been overthrown, and who, in pursuance of that duty, discharged the functions of the office,...