Miller v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Hudson County, A--460

• Decision Date: 06 December 1951
• Docket Number: No. A--460,A--460
• Citation: 16 N.J.Super. 457,84 A.2d 746
• Parties: MILLER et al. v. BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF HUDSON COUNTY.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Page 457

16 N.J.Super. 457

84 A.2d 746

MILLER et al. v. BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF HUDSON COUNTY.

No. A--460.

Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division.

Argued Nov. 13, 1951.

Decided Dec. 6, 1951.

Thomas J. Brogan, Jersey City, argued the cause for plaintiffs-respondents (Isadore Glauberman, Jersey City, of counsel; Lois Steisel and Elsie Louise White, Jersey City, attorneys).

Frederick J. Gassert, Harrison, argued the cause for defendant-appellant (Daniel T. O'Regan, Jersey City, attorney).

Before Judges JACOBS, EASTWOOD and BIGELOW.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

EASTWOOD, J.A.D.

Chapter 54, L.1938 (R.S. 40:21--80), N.J.S.A., effective July 1, 1938, provides that in counties of the first class the salaries of jail guards shall be fixed at $2,000 minimum and $3,000 maximum; that employees in service on the effective date of the law 'shall on July first following the passage of this act be entitled to receive an increase of two hundred dollars ($200.00) over his or her present salary and on July first in each year thereafter shall be entitled to a further increase of two hundred dollars ($200.00), not to exceed the maximum herein established.' The plaintiffs' decedents, Adolph Miller and Herman C. Hinners (hereinafter referred to as 'the guards'), were within the statutory classification. Each was receiving a salary of $1,750 per annum, which continued until their respective deaths, on May 6, 1939 and January 4, 1941. The Board of Chosen Freeholders of Hudson County (hereinafter referred to as 'the county'), made no provision for the payment of the salary increases. Nor did the plaintiffs or guards make any demand upon the county for the payment thereof. The only reference in the testimony to a request for payment of the increases is that in 1938, after the passage of the act, when the Hudson County guards formed a committee and presented a copy of the act to the assistant secretary of the board as well as the Sheriff of Hudson County and requested the increases; that thereafter a letter was addressed to the secretary of the board by the committee. The plaintiffs' complaint was filed April 3, 1950. The guards, during their lifetime, signed the payrolls and accepted, without protest, their salary checks based on the $1,750 salary. At the trial before the Hudson County Court, Law Division, and a jury a verdict was returned in favor of the plaintiff, Mary A. Miller, administratrix, etc., for $170.03, and in favor of the plaintiff, Dorothy Marie Hinners, administratrix, etc., in the sum of $906.56.

The county's appeal is based upon the grounds that: (1) the remedy sought to be employed by plaintiffs is not the proper one; (2) the action is barred by the statute of limitations; and (3) by laches.

The county argues that the plaintiffs should have instituted a Mandamus proceeding. This was not asserted as an affirmative defense, there is no reference thereto in the pretrial order nor was that order modified during the trial. In fact, the first allusion thereto was when the county argued its motion for dismissal. Not having been timely made, we cannot now consider it. See Rule 3:16; Peter W. Kero, Inc. v. Terminal Construction Corp., 6 N.J. 361, 373, 78 A.2d 814 (1951). If we were to consider the question, the comments of Mr. Justice Case in Boyle v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Passaic County, 120 N.J.L. 552, 1 A.2d 40 (Sup.Ct.1938), are apt: 'The purpose of the proceeding is to enable Boyle, who is a county detective of the county of Passaic, to collect his alleged salary from the Board of Chosen Freeholders, and the board resists. The ordinary and well recognized procedure where the right to salary is asserted and denied is by a suit at law for the salary. Butler v. Inhabitants of City of Plainfield, 135 A. 669, 5 N.J.Misc. 170; Federici v. Christiansen, 11 Misc. 742, 168 A. 183. Recent instances where that practice has been followed are Delmar v. Bergen County, 117 N.J.L. 377, 189 A. 75; Vander Burgh v. County of Bergen, 120 N.J.L. 444, 200 A. 561, and other pending cases. If Boyle has not a good cause of action, much less is he entitled to the requested writ.'

There is no merit to the county's contention that the plaintiffs' actions are barred by the statute of limitations. It relies principally upon the case of Ross v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Hudson County, 90 N.J.L. 522, 102 A. 397 (E. & A.1917), holding that the Hudson County jail guards are employees of the county and the relationship between the county and the guards is that of master and servant, and, A fortiori, being contractual in its...