Uszkay v. Dill
| Decision Date | 19 February 1919 |
| Citation | 106 A. 17 |
| Parties | USZKAY v. DILL, Commissioner of Motor Vehicles. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Application for writ of mandamus by Julius Uszkay against William L. Dill, Commissioner of Motor Vehicles. Alternative writ to issue.
Argued February term, 1919, before PARKER and MINTURN, JJ.
William Reich, of Trenton, for prosecutor.
Thomas F. McCran, Atty. Gen., and William Newcorn, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant.
The relator, a resident of Trenton for the past 11 years, is an enemy alien, being a native of Austro-Hungary and not a citizen of the United States. The allegation is that the commissioner of motor vehicles has refused to grant him a license asa chauffeur or driver of an automobile upon the ground that he is an enemy alien, and as such during the existing state of war he is not entitled to claim and obtain the privilege he seeks. The defendant exercises the power of granting licenses under the acts of the Legislature contained in 3 C. S. p. 3430, § 11, P. L. 1915, p. 234, which authorizes him "to license at his discretion" and to refuse to grant a license "to any person who shall in the estimation of said commissioner be an improper person to be granted such a license." This is not a case where we are required to pass upon the propriety of the act of refusing a license in the given instance, as the argument of the relator would seem to indicate. It might be said that during a state of war the commissioner would be within his right, if not entirely within a proper conception of his duty in the premises, in taking notice of the fact that a state of war exists between the United States and Austro-Hungary, and that public policy would therefore warrant him in refusing a license to any person who by reason of the privilege and power committed to such person by what may be properly deemed a state privilege or concession may be thus placed in a position by the possession of the instrumentality or mechanism placed-at his disposal to prejudice or injure the proper conduct of the war between the militant nations. But we are not called upon under the status that this case presents of entering into a discussion of that question. For the rule of law upon an application of this nature is that the court will not, except in a case of palpable unreasonableness in the exercise of the power, direct an administrative officer to exercise the power committed to him in any particular method. W. J. & S. R. R. Co. v. Public...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Switz v. Middletown Tp., Monmouth County
...authority. The right of the relator and the public duty sought to be enforced must be both clear and certain. Uszkay v. Dill, 92 N.J.L. 327, 106 A. 17 (Sup.Ct.1919); Edward C. Jones Co. v. Town of Guttenberg, 66 N.J.L. 58, 48 A. 537 (Sup.Ct.1901), affirmed Id., 66 N.J.L. 659, 51 A. 274 (E. ......
-
Beronio v. Pension Comm'n Of City Of Hoboken.
...143, 172 A. 193, 785. The right of the relator and the public duty sought to be enforced must both be clear and certain. Uszkay v. Dill, 92 N.J.L. 327, 106 A. 17. But is the enforcement of private rights, the lawful exercise of discretion excludes mere caprice or arbitrary action. In the wo......
-
New Jersey Optometric Ass'n v. Hillman-Kohan Eyeglasses, Inc.
...authority. The right of the relator and the public duty sought to be enforced must be both clear and certain. Uszkay v. Dill, 92 N.J.L. 327, 106 A. 17 (Sup.Ct. 1919); Edward C. Jones Co. v. Town of Guttenberg, 66 N.J.L. 58, 48 A. 537 (Sup.Ct. 1901), affirmed Id., 66 N.J.L. 659, 51 A. 274 (E......
-
Silvester v. Mayor & Council of Borough of Princeton
...abuse of discretion (State v. Essex County, 23 N. J. Law, 214; Conger v. Middlesex County, 55 N. J. Law, 112, 25 A. 275; Uszkay v. Dill, 92 N. J. Law, 327, 106 A. 17); the presumption being that such refusal was based upon proper motives and valid reasons (Buffalo v. Hill, 79 App. Div. 402,......