Edwards v. Petry

• Decision Date: 18 June 1917
• Docket Number: No. 77.,77.
• Citation: 101 A. 195,90 N.J.Law 670
• Parties: EDWARDS, Comptroller of Treasury. v. PETRY.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

101 A. 195

90 N.J.Law 670

EDWARDS, Comptroller of Treasury.

v. PETRY.

No. 77.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

June 18, 1917.

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Certiorari by Edward I. Edwards, Comptroller of the Treasury, against Frederick Petry, Jr. From judgment for defendant, prosecutor appeals. Affirmed.

On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which the following per curiam was filed:

"This is a writ of certiorari to review an order made by Justice Trenchard, under chapter 120 of the Laws of 1915, providing for an order by a justice of the Supreme Court to enforce rights under the Civil Service Act The sole question argued by the prosecutor was as to the power of the Legislature to delegate to a justice of the Supreme Court this right to review.

"In the present case the defendant appealed to the civil service commission and met with an adverse decision, and thereupon applied to Justice Trenchard and secured an order reversing the action of the Commission. We do not find in the case that Justice Trenchard went further than to issue a rule to show cause on the comptroller, and the power to issue the writ was therefore challenged in limine. This involves the questions that were discussed in this court in New Brunswick v. McCann, 74 N. J. Law, 171, 64 Atl. 159; Newark v. Kazinski, 86 N. J. Law, 59, 90 Atl. 1016, and Summit v. Iarusso, 87 N. J. Law, 403, 94 Atl. 806. We think that, while the case presents some difficulty, we are bound, nevertheless, to follow the last two cases, which seem to us controlling.

"We think that the jurisdiction given to the justices of the Supreme Court by the act under consideration in no way interferes with the right of the Supreme Court to review the entire case by certiorari, but superadds an additional step in a proceeding which may ultimately reach this court as a reviewing tribunal. We are not to be understood as approving of this character of legislation which quite insidiously results in unsettling the legal machinery of the court without gaining ultimately any substantial advantage to the litigant by the disarrangement.

"We think this writ must be dismissed."

John W. Wescott, Atty. Gen., for appellant. Linton Satterthwait, of Trenton, for appellee.

PER CURIAM. The judgment under review will be affirmed for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the Supreme Court.