Smith v. Borough of Matawan, 52.
| Decision Date | 18 September 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 52.,52. |
| Citation | 129 N.J.L. 100,28 A.2d 119 |
| Parties | Charles E. SMITH, Appellant v. BOROUGH OF MATAWAN, Respondent. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Heuser & Heuser, of Matawan (Ralph S. Heuser, of Matawan, of counsel), for appellant.
Edward W. Currie, of Matawan, for respondent.
The judgment under review herein should be affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Donges in the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported at 126 N.J.L. 585, 20 A.2d 516.
For affirmance: The CHANCELLOR, the CHIEF JUSTICE, Justices PARKER, BODINE, PERSKIE, PORTER, and COLIE, Judges DEAR, WELLS, RAFFERTY, HAGUE, and THOMPSON—12.
For reversal: None.
To continue reading
Request your trial
5 cases
-
Smith v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Bergen County
...for about 13 years under only one appointment. See also, Smith v. Matawan, 126 N.J.L. 585, 20 A.2d 516 (Sup.Ct.1941), aff'd 129 N.J.L. 100, 28 A.2d 119 (E. & A.1942), where an exempt fireman was denied tenure to a position to which he had been reappointed each year for many These and many o......
-
Allgaier v. Woodbridge Tp.
...does not apply to any office the term of which is fixed by law, Smith v. Borough of Matawan, 126 N.J.L. 585, 20 A.2d 516, affirmed 129 N.J.L. 100, 28 A.2d 119. In the case of Greenfield v. Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners, supra, the Court said that ‘while the statute now under review ......
-
Woodbridge Tp. v. Civil Serv. Comm'n
...period for which he accepted it’. Smith v. Borough of Matawan, 126 N.J.L. 585 (Sup.Ct.1941) at page 586, 20 A.2d 516, affd. 129 N.J.L. 100, 28 A.2d 119 (E. & A. 1942). Cf. Browne v. Hagen, 91 N.J.L. 544, 104 A. 207 (E. & A. 1918); De Camp v. Harrison, 108 N.J.L. 51, 156 A. 122 (Sup.Ct.1931)......
-
Bialkowski v. Borough of Ridgefield
...differs from the above and is more comparable to Smith v. Matawan, 126 N.J.L. 585, 20 A.2d 516 (Sup.Ct.1941), aff'd 129 N.J.L. 100, 28 A.2d 119 (E. & A. 1942), in which plaintiff had been reappointed each year for 13 consecutive years. The court held that since he had accepted an appointmen......
Request a trial to view additional results