State v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of Hudson County
| Decision Date | 08 November 1897 |
| Citation | 61 N.J.L. 120,38 A. 818 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. ROWE v. BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF HUDSON COUNTY. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Application by the state, on the relation of Norman L. Rowe, for a writ of mandamus compelling the board of chosen freeholders of Hudson county to restore the relator to his position as attorney to the respondent Order discharged.
Argued June term, 1897, before LUDLOW, COLLINS, and DIXON, JJ.
John A. Dennin, for relator.
John Griffen, for respondent.
On August 1, 1895, the board of chosen freeholders of Hudson county, by resolution, appointed Mr. Rowe (a member of the bar of this state) as "attorney to the board," without defining the term, his compensation to be at the rate of $1,800 per annum. The subsequent board having removed him, he, being an honorably discharged Union soldier, claims the protection of the veteran act of March 14, 1895 (3 Gen. St. p. 3702). But this statute applies only to offices, and positions which are analogous to offices in the permanence of the duties which pertain to them. Lewis v. Jersey City, 51 N. J. Law, 240, 17 Atl. 112; Stewart v. County Freeholders (N. J. Sup.; Nov. Term, 1897) 38 Atl. 842. There is no law creating or recognizing such an office as attorney to the board of chosen freeholders, and we think the whole force of this resolution was to employ Mr. Rowe as attorney of that particular board, so that, when the board expired by limitation of the law, his employmerit as its attorney necessarily came to an end. His duties, not being otherwise defined, were only temporary in their nature, and therefore his post was not within the scope of the veteran acts. The rule for mandamus must be discharged.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perrella v. Board of Ed. of City of Jersey City
...of designations: 'counsel to,' 'attorneys for,' 'assistant counsel,' 'deputy attorney,' etc. See, e.g. Rowe v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Hudson County, 61 N.J.L. 120, 38 A. 818 (Sup.Ct.1897). But when they are appointed on an indefinite basis, in our view, whatever the title, they are ......
-
Cetrulo v. Byrne
...N.J. 511, 518, 120 A.2d 449 (1956); Marjon v. Altman, 120 N.J.L. 16, 17, 197 A. 724 (Sup.Ct.1938); Rowe v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Hudson, 61 N.J.L. 120, 121, 38 A. 818 (Sup.Ct.1897). In N.J.S. 2A:157--1 et seq. (formerly R.S. 2:181--1 et seq.) N.J.S.A., the Legislature has made expr......
- State v. Hudson County Elec. Co.
- State v. Barr