Strohmeyer v. Bor. Of Little Ferry., 1.
| Decision Date | 29 January 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. 1.,1. |
| Citation | 136 N.J.L. 485,56 A.2d 885 |
| Parties | STROHMEYER v. BOROUGH OF LITTLE FERRY. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by Henry W. Strohmeyer against Borough of Little Ferry to recover salary as a police officer allegedly due plaintiff. From an adverse judgment, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Apart from statute there may be no recovery for a salary not earned.
2. The revised statutes do not provide for the recovery of a police officer's salary which was not earned because of wrongful suspension.
Joseph H. Gaudielle and James A. Major, both of Hackensack, for appellant.
Charles W. Weleck, of Hackensack, for respondent.
The appellant in this case had been a police officer in the Borough of Little Ferry. On December 4, 1945 he was suspended pending his trial on charges preferred against him. On September 9, 1946 he was given a trial and was found not guilty. The present action was for salary for the period from December 4, 1945 to September 9, 1946. The complaint was struck by the learned Judge of the Circuit Court and this action is before us on this appeal.
The right to suspend, pending a trial on charges, is granted by statute, R.S. 40:47-6, N.J.S.A. Under R.S. 40:46-34, N.J.S.A., it is provided that where a policeman or fireman has been illegally dismissed and such dismissal has been declared judicially illegal, the fireman or policeman shall be entitled to recover the salary of his office or employment for the period covered by the illegal dismissal. Had the legislature also provided for recovery where a police officer was illegally suspended, the appellant's right to recovery in this case would have been clear; but since no such right has been granted we are obliged to find that the ruling of the learned trial Judge in striking the complaint was in all respects proper. Sganga v. Teaneck Township, 130 N.J.L. 218, 32 A.2d 505. In that case the authorities are collected. Apart from statute that there is no right of recovery for a salary not earned seems clear.
The judgment under appeal will be affirmed.
For affirmance: The CHANCELLOR, The CHIEF JUSTICE, Justices BODINE, DONGES, HEHER, COLIE, WACHENFELD, EASTWOOD, and BURLING, and Judges WELLS, DILL, FREUND, McLEAN and SCHETTINO-14.
For reversal: None.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mastrobattista v. Essex County Park Commission
...Alcoholic Beverage Control investigator; Hillel v. Edgewater, 106 N.J.L. 481, 150 A. 385 (E. & A. 1930), and Strohmeyer v. Little Ferry, 136 N.J.L. 485, 56 A.2d 885 (E. & A. 1948), which dealt with municipal police officers; but cf. N.J.S.A. 40:46--34; McGrath v. Jersey City, 38 N.J. 31, 18......
-
Jalowiecki v. Leuc
...its terms. If it had done so, the right to recover would be clear. Under somewhat similar circumstances, in Strohmeyer v. Little Ferry, 136 N.J.L. 485 (56 A.2d 885) (E. & A. 1947) it was "Had the legislature also provided for recovery where a police officer was illegally suspended, the appe......
-
De Marco v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Bergen County, A--66
...481, 150 A. 385 (E. & A.1930); Sganga v. Teaneck Township, 130 N.J.L. 218, 32 A.2d 505 (Sup.Ct.1943); Strohmeyer v. Borough of Little Ferry, 136 N.J.L. 485, 56 A.2d 885 (E. & A.1948); Pollak v. Borough of Wallington, 37 A.2d 424, 22 N.J.Misc. 239 (D.Ct.1944). Cf. Devlin v. City of Trenton, ......
-
Winne v. Bergen County
...120 N.J.L. 27, 30, 197 A. 891 (Sup.Ct.1938), affirmed 121 N.J.L. 135, 1 A.2d 416 (E. & A.1938); Strohmeyer v. Borough of Little Ferry, 136 N.J.L. 485, 56 A.2d 885, (E. & A.1948)), and that none of the legislative enactments invoked by him (R.S. 40:46--34, N.J.S.A., N.J.S. 2A:135--9, N.J.S.A......