State v. Haines
| Decision Date | 28 February 1886 |
| Citation | 48 N.J.L. 25,8 A. 723 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. ADAMS v. HAINES. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Demurrer to information in nature of a quo warranto.
Samuel D. Bergen, for relator.
Alfred Hugg, for respondent.
From the pleadings filed in this proceeding, these facts appear: That on the eighth day of November, 1882, the board of chosen freeholders of the county of Camden selected and appointed the respondent to be steward of the almshouse for said county, to hold the office for three years from the twenty-fifth day of March then next ensuing; that at a meeting of the board held on November 12, 1884, the relator, Charles F. Adams, was elected to the position of steward, with his term to begin on the twenty-fifth day of March, 1885, and on the twenty-fourth day of December, 1884, the board directed its almshouse committee to give possession of the said almshouse property to the relator on the twenty-fifth day of March following. The respondent continues in possession of the public property, and claims the right to hold the said position, under his appointment, against the action of the board of freeholders. The questions in the case are whether the chosen freeholders had power to revoke the appointment of the respondent during the three years specified as his term, and whether, in fact, it exercised that power.
The position of keeper or steward of the almshouse is not one expressly created by any law of the state. It exists alone for the more convenient management of the almshouse, under the authority of the board of chosen freeholders. It is an office solely the creature of the freeholders. By the thirty-first section of the act incorporating the chosen freeholders of the several counties (Revision, p. 132) the board of chosen freeholders of any county is authorized to appoint such officers, hire such servants, and make such regulations, ordinances, and by-laws, respecting the care and government of poor-houses, as they shall from time to time deem necessary or convenient. It is under this power that the office has being. It will be seen by this section that the entire control over this subject is given to the board. They may create these offices as the public need requires, and continue them at their will. They may appoint to such office when and whom they see fit, for such time as they see fit, and abolish the office or change the incumbent at their pleasure. The case of Greene v. Freeholders of Hudson Co., 44 N. J. Law, 388,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cocks v. Varney
... ... the complainants) and his wife and children, and that at David's death the share should go to David's children; that the will was proved in the state of New York, and letters testamentary thereon issued there to the executors, who were the testator's sons David and Harrison and his daughter Phebe, ... ...