Federici v. Christiansen

• Decision Date: 07 September 1933
• Docket Number: No. 209.,209.
• Citation: 168 A. 183
• Parties: FEDERICI v. CHRISTIANSEN, City Clerk, et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

168 A. 183

FEDERICI

v. CHRISTIANSEN, City Clerk, et al.

No. 209.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Sept. 7, 1933.

Mandamus proceeding on the relation of Serafino J. Federici against William F. Christiansen and Frank J. Murray, to compel respondents, as city clerk and mayor, respectively, of the city of Orange, to sign a warrant drawn on the city treasurer, payablo to the order of relator, for salary alleged to be due him as third assistant to the comptroller. On rule to show cause why a peremptory or alternative writ of mandamus should not issue.

Rule discharged.

Argued May term, 1933, before CASE, BODINE, and DONGES, JJ.

Merritt Lane, of Newark, for relator.

Edward R. McGlynn, of Newark, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

This is the return or a rule to show cause why a peremptory or alternative writ of mandamus should not issue directing the city clerk and the mayor of the city of Orange to sign a warrant drawn on the treasurer of the city of Orange, payable to the order of Serafino J. Federici, in the sum of $90 for salary alleged to be due him as third assistant to the comptroller, performing duties of clerk, stenographer, and typist.

It appears from the record that Walter B. Savage, director of revenue and finance of the city of Orange, appointed the relator to the position of "third assistant to the Comptroller * * * to fulfill the duties of clerk, stenographer and typist at a salary of $2,400.00 per year, payable in equal semi-monthly installments, the term of such appointment to become effective September 15th, 1932." Federici began work September 15, 1932. A warrant drawn as of October 4, 1932, directing the treasurer of the city of Orange to pay to Federici the sum of $90 for his salary under such appointment from September 15, 1932, to October 1, 1932, was signed by the comptroller of the city and submitted to the mayor and the city clerk for signature and counter signature. The last-named officials refused to sign.

Notwithstanding the inclusion within the printed state of case, we may not take cognizance of the matters contained within the ex parte affidavits used upon the application for the rule. The efficacy of these proofs is lost upon the allowance of the rule. Peer v. Bloxham, 82 N. J. Law, 288, 81 A. 659.

Federici endeavored to obtain payment of his salary by method contrary to the practice prevailing with the employees of the city of Orange, and for the purpose apparently of creating a status of which the court might take...