Bors v. Davis
| Decision Date | 26 July 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 80.,80. |
| Citation | 142 A. 760 |
| Parties | BORS v. DAVIS. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Quo warranto proceeding by the State, on the relation of Alexander Bors, against Albert E. Davis, Jr. Judgment for respondent.
Argued January term, 1928, before GUMMERE, C. J., and BLACK and LLOYD, JJ.
Edmund A. Hayes, of New Brunswick, for relator.
Thomas L. Hanson, of Perth Amboy, for respondent.
The present proceeding was instituted by the relator to compel his restoration to the position of chief of police of the township of Raritan. On March 9, 1923, the township committee passed an ordinance providing for the establishment of a police department within its territorial limits, which ordinance was introduced and passed on first and second readings on March 2d. Some two weeks later the township committee appointed Davis, the respondent, as assistant to the chief of police, and in 1924 appointed him the head of that department. In March, 1927, the township committee passed another ordinance regulating the police department, and a few days later adopted a resolution appointing the relator, Bors, as the chief of police in the place of Davis. On the 1st of July, 1927, the committe adopted a resolution, the purport of which was that the appointment of Bors was invalid, because it involved the removal from office of Chief of Police Davis, the present respondent, who was a veteran soldier, and as such was protected by the Veterans' Act from removal from office except for cause, and, for this reason, restored Davis to the position of chief of police. The relator claims that this action on the part of the township committee was without legal justification.
The basis of the relator's contention is that the ordinance of 1923, and all municipal action based upon it, including the appointment of Davis as chief of police, were invalid because the ordinance was not passed in accordance with the provisions of the statute regulating the adoption of municipal ordinances, in that it was finally passed on an adjourned date, the adjourned day being the continuation of the day of the meeting at which the ordinance was originally introdueed and that, consequently, the restoration of Davis to an office the title to which was never vested in him was without legal warrant. This, however, is a matter which cannot be adjudicated in the present proceeding. A municipal ordinance enacted in pursuance of legislative authority cannot be attacked collaterally. It is presumed to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hill v. London, Stetelman, and Kirkwood, Inc.
...must "be afforded an opportunity of being heard in defense of its action in the passing of the ordinance," Bors v. Davis, 6 N.J. Misc. 793, 142 A. 760, 761 (1928). The rule is followed by most states. See e.g., Bors v. Davis, 6 N.J.Misc. 793, 142 A. 760 (1928); Board of Commissioners of Sta......
-
Council Of City Of Hoboken v. Civil Serv. Comm'n Of N.J.
...must be in a direct proceeding against the municipality and not in a collateral attack as attempted in the instant case. Bors v. Davis, 142 A. 760, 6 N.J.Misc. 793; Saddle River Tp. in Bergen County v. Public Service, 110 N.J.L. 433, 166 A. 148. The writ is dismissed with ...
-
Saddle River Tp. v. Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co.
...to legislative authority, citing Overpeck Land Corporation v. Ridgefield Park, 104 N. J. Law, 402, 404, 140 A. 300; Bors v. Davis, 142 A. 760, 6 N. J. Misc. 794. Appeal from Supreme Action by Saddle River Township in Bergen County, against the Public Service Electric & Gas Company. From an ......
-
Center v. Arp
... ... and bears no relation thereto. Wilson v. Harris, 170 ... Ga. 800(8), 154 S.E. 388; Bors v. Davis, 6 N.J.Misc ... 793, 142 A. 760. Nor is the question of whether the ordinance ... is in itself arbitrary and unreasonable in any wise ... ...