Fitzpatrick v. City of Passaic
| Decision Date | 23 November 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 402.,402. |
| Citation | 143 A. 728 |
| Parties | FITZPATRICK et al. v. CITY OF PASSAIC. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court of Passaic.
Suit by Patrick Fitzpatrick and others against the City of Passaic. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Reversed.
Argued May term, 1928, before TRENCHARD, KALISCH, and LLOYD, JJ.
Joseph J. Weinberger, of Passaic, for appellant.
Gross & Gross and William George, all of Jersey City, and Frederick Ranzenhofer, of Passaic, for respondents.
LLOYD, J. Judgments were rendered for the plaintiffs, policemen and firemen of the city of Passaic, for salaries claimed to be due them from the city under promotions made by Commissioner Preiskel, director of public safety, on May 16, 1927. The city appeals.
The history of the cases is that on May 10, 1927, Preiskel, who had been one of the five commissioners of the city for the four years preceding, was defeated for re-election. His term would expire on May 17, 1927. On the day before, May 16th, he as director of public safety made 23 promotions in the police and fire departments, there being at that time in the police department 97 members and in the fire department 86. When the new commission organized on May 17th, one Turner was selected as director of public safety. Turner never recognized the promotions, nor were they confirmed by the board of commissioners. Thereafter and until the bringing of these suits the plaintiffs continued the performance of their former duties and received and accepted the compensation attached thereto.
Late in the year 1927 these actions were begun to recover the difference in salary between that previously received and that which would be due them if filling the offices to which they were promoted. No service in the new positions was ever performed.
The city contends that these promotions were against public policy; that it is an attempt to try title to office; and that the court erred in not giving judgments for the defendant because the plaintiffs never performed any duties in the offices to which they had been promoted.
Without going into the propriety or the validity of the wholesale promotions thus made by the commissioner on the eve of the expiration of his term of office, we think the judgments were wrong for the reasons last urged. In the decision of this court in the case of Hoboken v. Gear, 27 N. J. Law, 265, the nature of the relation between a municipality and one of its officers was carefully considered, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
La Polla v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Union County
...function, even where certain types of subordinate employment were involved. 6 Rutgers L.Rev. 503 (1952); Fitzpatrick v. City of Passaic, 105 N.J.L. 103, 143 A. 728 (Sup.Ct.1928), affirmed 105 N.J.L. 632, 147 A. 908 (E. & A. 1929) (firemen); Turtur v. Turley, 103 N.J.L. 526, 138 A. 209 (Sup.......
-
Miller v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Hudson County
...N.J.L. 225, 160 A. 559 (E. & A.1932). Another authority pertinent to the question involved in this appeal was Fitzpatrick v. Passaic, 105 N.J.L. 103, 143 A. 728 (Sup.Ct.1928). The Fitzpatrick case, supra, was a suit by policemen and firemen for salaries claimed to be due them from the city ......
-
De Marco v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Bergen County, A--66
...Curran, 44 N.J.L. 181 (E. & A.1882); Erwin v. City of Jersey City, 60 N.J.L. 141, 37 A. 732 (E. & A.1897); Fitzpatrick v. City of Passaic, 105 N.J.L. 103, 143 A. 728 (Sup.Ct.1928), affirmed 105 N.J.L. 632, 147 A. 908 (E. & A.1929); Hillel v. Borough of Edgewater, 106 N.J.L. 481, 150 A. 385 ......
-
De Marco v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Bergen County, L--4984
...60 N.J.L. 141, 37 A. 732 (E. & A.1897); Roberts v. City of Orange, 102 N.J.L. 721, 133 A. 418 (E. & A.1926); Fitzpatrick v. City of Passaic, 105 N.J.L. 103, 143 A. 728 (Sup.Ct.1928), affirmed 105 N.J.L. 632, 147 A. 908 (E. & A.1929); Hillel v. Borough of Edgewater, 106 N.J.L. 481, 150 A. 38......