Heil v. Mayor and Bd. of Comm'rs of City of Wildwood
| Decision Date | 06 March 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 247.,247. |
| Citation | 164 A. 868 |
| Parties | HEIL v. MAYOR AND BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF CITY OF WILDWOOD. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Certiorari proceeding prosecuted by C. A. Hell, Jr., against the Mayor and Board of Commissioners of the City of Wildwood, to test the validity of a resolution reducing prosecutor's salary.
Resolution set aside.
Argued October term, 1932, before PARKER and LLOYD, JJ.
Wm. Elmer Brown, Jr., of Atlantic City, for prosecutor.
Harry Tenenbaum, of Wildwood, and Carl Kisselman, of Camden, for respondents.
Originally a rule to show cause why a writ of certiorari should not issue, by stipulation of the parties it was agreed that the writ issue and that the court dispose of the case finally on the record as presented on the return of the rule.
Heil is the city clerk of Wildwood and his salary has been $3,500 per annum. By resolution of the mayor and board of commissioners the salary was reduced to $1,200. The writ brings up this resolution. Two grounds are urged for setting it aside: (1) That there is no authority in the law for the respondent to fix a salary of any of its officials by resolution, the statute requiring that it shall be done by ordinance; and (2) that the resolution is not in good faith, but was for the purpose of forcing the prosecutor put of his office.
While not impressed with the second point, we think the first makes necessary the setting aside of the resolution in so far as it affects the salary of the prosecutor. The law seems to be clear on the subject. The Home Rule Act () provides in the first section of article 13 for the fixing of salaries by ordinance, and chapter 162, Laws of 1929, page 291 (Comp. St. Supp. § *136—1320D(1) seems to prescribe the same method. The latter statute we considered in Adams v. Mayor, etc., of City of Plainfield, 109 N. J. Law, 282, 161 A. 647.
As to the second point, the straitened financial condition of most municipalities at this time is a matter of common knowledge as well as the need for drastic action in curtailment of municipal expenses. While the reduction in the case of the prosecutor is very large, there seem to be other reductions approaching the same sort of a cut.
Certain speeches of one of the members of the municipal board are laid hold of by the prosecutor to indicate that there was bad motive inducing the severe reduction of the prosecutor's salary, but we...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Galvin v. Kansas City
... ... P.2d 715; Myers v. City of Calipatria (Cal.), 35 ... P.2d 377; Heil v. Mayor and Board of Commissioners of ... City of Wildwood, 11 N.J ... ...
-
Chinn v. City of Biloxi
... ... pursuant to an alleged oral agreement between the mayor and a ... councilman that either of them might employ additional help ... 876, 20 Utah 233; Ruell v. City of ... Hepina, 66 N.W. 49; Heil v. Mayor & Board of Comrs., ... of City of Wildwood, 164 A. 868, 11 N.J ... ...
-
Grosso v. City of Paterson
...ranges, and they can be reduced or changed only by an ordinance, not by a resolution or other action (Heil v. Mayor, etc., of Wildwood, 11 N.J.Misc. 171, 164 A. 868 (Sup.Ct.1933); Howard v. Mayor, etc., of Paterson, supra); plaintiffs have not waived their right to the increments; on the co......
-
Cooper v. Mayor
...by resolution because power to establish compensation must be exercised by ordinance); Heil v. Mayor and Bd. of Comm'rs of City of Wildwood, 11 N.J. Misc. 171, 173, 164 A. 868 (Sup.Ct.1933) (setting aside resolution reducing city clerk's salary because such reduction could be achieved only ......