Mcalpine v. City Of Garfield.
| Decision Date | 13 May 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. 25.,25. |
| Citation | 137 N.J.L. 197,59 A.2d 3 |
| Parties | McALPINE v. CITY OF GARFIELD. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Bergen County.
Action by James McAlpine against City of Garfield, Bergen County, a municipal corporation of the state of New Jersey, to recover salary as water plant superintendent of the city following plaintiff's unlawful discharge. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, 55 A.2d 666, 25 N.J.Misc. 477, the defendant appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
.
1. The Garfield Water Commission conducted a hearing on charges against its superintendent, determined that the accused was guilty and discharged him; the Supreme Court, on writ of certiorari, affirmed; the Court of Errors and Appeals, on appeal, determined that the superintendent was under statutory tenure, could not be discharged without a fair trial, was not given a fair trial and that therefore the Supreme Court judgment which sustained the discharge should be reversed; the Supreme Court thereupon set aside the dismissal; Held, those proceedings constituted a judicial declaration that the dismissal was illegal.
2. A finding of fact, essential to the judgment reached, is conclusive between the parties.
3. The City of Garfield set up a Water Commission with authority to employ and release necessary help, the same to be paid by the city; Held, the city was, through its agency, a party to a suit to set aside a discharge of the superintendent sufficiently to be bound by the essential factual findings therein in a subsequent suit by the discharged employee to recover wages accruing because of the unlawfulness of the discharge.
4. A water superintendent employed by a municipal water works is within the classification ‘municipal officer or employee’ as used in R. S. 40:46-34, N.J.S.A.
Warren Dixon, Jr., of Hackensack, and Richard J. Baker, of Garfield, for plaintiff-respondent.
John Frank Jr. and Chandless, Weller, Kramer & Frank, all of Hackensack, for defendant-appellant.
The suit was brought in the Bergen County Circuit Court by James McAlpine to recover his salary as water plant superintendent of the City of Garfield following his allegedly unlawful discharge on December 13, 1944. The claim runs from January 1, 1945. Defendant's answer was struck and summary judgment was entered. The appeal is from that judgment.
The Garfield Water Commission was the agency of the City of Garfield in the operation and maintenance of the city water system, with authority to hire employees and to fix the salaries which were to be paid by the city. R. S. 58:11-14, N.J.S.A. (under Article 5) provides that no municipality shall appoint any person as or permit any person to discharge the duties of, superintendent or operator in charge of any water purification or treatment plant purifying or treating water used for potable purposes unless he is the holder of a license issued under the provisions of article 5. McAlpine was so licensed. R.S. 58:11-18.7, N.J.S.A., ch. 234, sec. 1, P.L. 1941, provides that ‘no person now or hereafter licensed under the provisions of article five of chapter eleven of Title 58 of the Revised Statutes, having direct general charge of the operation and maintenance of public water systems or sewage disposal or treatment plants after five years' consecutive service in any such position shall be removed from his position or subjected to a reduction of salary except for good cause and after a public hearing.’
In McAlpine v. Garfield Water Commission, 135 N.J.L. 497, 52 A.2d 759, 171 A.L.R. 172, as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Epstein v. Lordi
...assumption was an essential aspect of the decision, it constitutes an integral part of the Court's holding. McAlpine v. City of Garfield, 137 N.J.L. 197, 59 A.2d 3 (E. & A., 1948); Trustees of School Dist. No. 28, of Warren County v. Stocker, 42 N.J.L. 115 (Sup.Ct. 1880); 50 C.J.S. Judgment......
-
Gregory Marketing Corp. v. Wakefern Food Corp.
...action which was held by receiver and court to be essential to judgment was binding in subsequent action); McAlpine v. Garfield, 137 N.J.L. 197, 198-199, 59 A.2d 3 (E. & A.1948), aff'g 25 N.J.Misc. 477, 55 A.2d 666 (Sup.Ct.1947) (findings in prior action, relied on by prior court to enter j......
-
Chirelstein v. Chirelstein, A--519
...contract was void Ab initio on certain grounds that had not been presented in the earlier actions. But compare McAlpin v. Garfield, 137 N.J.L. 197, 59 A.2d 3 (E.&A.1948). While we are hampered by the lack of a proper record of the proceedings in Florida, the testimony of the parties shows t......
-
Goodpasture v. Goodpasture
...having the right to do so, relied thereon. McAlpine v. Garfield, 25 N.J.Misc. 477, 480, 55 A.2d 666 (Cir.Ct.1947), affd. 137 N.J.L. 197, 59 A.2d 3 (E. & A.1948). The essence of equitable estoppel is that one is precluded from taking a position inconsistent with that previously assumed and i......