Van Saun v. Twp. Comm. of Pequannock Tp.

• Decision Date: 12 June 1930
• Citation: 150 A. 770
• Parties: VAN SAUN v. TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE OF PEQUANNOCK TP. et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

150 A. 770

VAN SAUN

v. TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE OF PEQUANNOCK TP. et al.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

June 12, 1930.

Certiorari by Albert W. Van Saun against the Township Committee of the Township of Pequannock and others, to review the legality of a resolution abolishing the office of recorder.

Writ dismissed.

Argued before Justice PARKER, sitting alone pursuant to the statute.

W. Eugene Turton, of Newark, for prosecutor.

King & Vogt, of Morristown, for defendants.

PARKER, J.

The new township committee of the township of Pequannock organized on the 1st day of January, 1930, and immediately passed a number of resolutions, one of which is now before me on this writ. It recites that certain portions of the former township had been set off and organized into separate municipalities and that a recorder of the township of Pequannock was no longer necessary and it would be in the interest of economy (to abolish the office), and proceeds: "Now, therefore, Be it resolved that the office of Recorder of the Township of Pequannock, in the county of Morris, be and the same is hereby abolished. This resolution to take effect immediately."

Previous to this resolution, the prosecutor had held office as recorder of the township of Pequannock by virtue of an appointment resting on the act of 1914, chapter 74 (P. L. page 112), which provides, among other things, that "in any township * * * the township committee may, in its discretion, appoint a fit person residing in such township to be recorder, to hold office for three years, and may fix the compensation to be paid such recorder, in lieu of all fees allowed by law in such cases. * * *" The prosecutor had been in receipt of a salary of $250 a year for his services as recorder and had also been paid certain additional moneys for expense account and rental of a room in which to hold hearings. The resolution is attacked on the sole ground that it was not passed in good faith but as a mere political manoeuvre.

This act of 1914 was discussed in the case of Shoemaker v. Center Township (Sup.) 129 A. 432, decided by the late Justice Katzenbach sitting alone. So far as applicable, this decision should be taken as controlling in the present case. It was there argued that the office was created by the statute, but the court held otherwise, viz., that the office was one created by the township committee pursuant to a power given by the Legislature. Justice Katzenbach further held that the statute also gave the power to...