Keegle v. Hudson County

• Decision Date: 13 November 1923
• Docket Number: Nos. 55, 56.,s. 55, 56.
• Citation: 122 A. 606
• Parties: KEEGLE v. HUDSON COUNTY. LILLIS v. SAME.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

122 A. 606

KEEGLE

v. HUDSON COUNTY.

LILLIS

v. SAME.

Nos. 55, 56.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Nov. 13, 1923.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from District Court of Jersey City.

Separate actions by Joseph Keegle and Charles E. Lillis against the County of Hudson. Judgment for plaintiff in each case, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

Argued June term, 1923, before TRENCHARD and PARKER, JJ.

Robert H. Doherty, of Jersey City, for appellant.

Lewis G. Hansen, of Jersey City, for respondents.

PER CURIAM. The legal principles to be applied in these cases are the same, and the questions raised can be disposed of in one opinion.

In the action by Keegle the facts are that he was appointed by the defendant as fire custodian at the county farm of defendant at Snake Hill, subject to "an act regulating the employment, tenure and discharge of certain officers and employees of this state, and of the various counties and municipalities thereof, and providing for a Civil Service Commission, and defining its powers and duties" (P. L. 1908, p. 235), and the amendments and supplements thereto. The defendant on December 2, 1912, suspended plaintiff, and refused to allow him to perform the duties of his service until December 12, 1912, when he was again put to work for a short time, and later discharged by defendant, and remained out of service until December 11. 1913, when he was reinstated. In 1918 plaintiff brought this action to recover his salary at the rate of $75 per month for the period he was prevented from working because of his discharge or suspension, and recovered a judgment therefor, from which the defendant has appealed.

The principal ground of the appeal is the refusal of the trial court to order a nonsuit. The plaintiff claimed that his dismissal was illegal mainly, if not entirely, because he was discharged without cause and without hearing, contrary to the provisions of the Civil Service Act, supra, to which defendant answered that the position held by the plaintiff was abolished in the interest of economy, and was legal. Therefore the question of legality was a disputed one. and the illegality of the discharge was not admitted as in Boss v. Freeholders of Hudson, 90 N. J. Law, 522, 102 Atl. 397. Instead of appealing to the Civil Service Commission to test the illegality of his removal, plaintiff brought this suit for that purpose. In other words, he seeks to try his right to the office by suit for salary. This he cannot do, and it was error not...