Doughty v. Scull
| Decision Date | 07 May 1915 |
| Citation | 96 A. 564 |
| Parties | DOUGHTY v. SCULL. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Quo warranto by the State, on the relation of Oscar Doughty, against James E. Scull. Motion to strike out plea denied.
Argued February term, 1915, before TRENCHARD, BERGEN, and BLACK, JJ.
C. C. Babcock and C. L. Cole, both of Atlantic City, for relator. A. C. Abbott, of Mays Landing, and Bourgeois & Coulomb, of Atlantic City, for respondent.
James E. Scull was elected city clerk of the city of Somers Point, where there are now two bodies claiming to be the common council of the city. One of these bodies removed Scull from office because he refused to serve it, he having recognized the other as the legal body and attended its meetings. After removing Scull, the same body appointed Doughty, the relator, who filed this information requiring Scull to answer by what warrant he claims to hold the office of city clerk.
Scull by his plea claims that the board which undertook to remove him from office was not legally qualified to take such action, and avers the following facts (which must be assumed to be true on this motion, which is to strike out the plea) viz.: That on the 1st day of January, 1915, the only legal members of the common council (the statutory number thereof being seven) were Martin V. B. Scull, James B. Cousart, Charles E. C. Steelman, and Thomas Birch. That a meeting of the council was called, which the three first named attended, Birch being absent, whereupon the three who were present proceeded to declare that there were three vacancies and to fill them by the election of three new members.
The act under which Somers Point is incorporated is P. L. 1897, p. 46, as amended in 1904, P. L. p. 192, and section 9 thereof provides that:
"In case of death, resignation, disability, disqualification, or removal from office, neglect or refusal to act, or removal out of the city or ward of any of the officers, or any vacancy in any office except mayor or justice of the peace, it shall be lawful for the common council to appoint others in their stead until the next city election," etc.
The act, in section 14, also provides that:
"A majority of the whole number of members of the common council shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, but a smaller number may adjourn from time to time," etc.
We think that the filling of vacancies in the common council is "transacting business," and that less than a majority of the whole number of members does...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ayres v. Dauchert
...however, that this act shall not apply to any offices now required by law to be filled from any such appointing body. In Doughty v. Scull, 96 A. 564 (Sup.Ct.1915) (not officially reported), this statute was held to prohibit the extension of the term in office of a councilman by the device o......
-
Prezlak v. Padrone
...this construction of the aforementioned clause. See Mason v. Mayor, etc., of City of Paterson, 35 N.J.L. 190 (Sup.Ct.1871); Doughty v. Scull, 96 A. 564 (Sup.Ct.1915) (not officially reported); Dombal v. City of Garfield, 129 N.J.L. 555, 30 A.2d 579 (Sup.Ct.1943); cf. Field v. Soffe, 79 N.J.......
-
Gemeny v. Prince George's County, 244
...A. 143 (1938), constitute the transaction of business. See also Muenninghoff v. Marret, 269 Ky. 826, 108 S.W.2d 878 (1937); Doughty v. Scull, 96 A. 564 (N.J.1915). There are also cases which take a contrary view. An example is Prezlak v. Padrone, 67 N.J.Super. 95, 169 A.2d 852, 856 (1961), ......
-
Bernstein v. Krom
...31, 1968, and was in opposition to N.J.S.A. 40:46--5. Such appointment does not have the color of law. In the case of Doughty v. Scull, N.J., 96 A. 564 (1915), our former Supreme Court held that where a member of the common council of a city resigned so that he might be appointed to fill a ......