Opinion

Valdes v. Baumann

  • 131 N.J.L. 43
  • 34 A.2d 745
  • 1943 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 41
Court
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Filed
Dec 9, 1943
Status
Published
Author
Bodine
On the bench
Brogan, Bodine, Colie
Cited by
5 cases
Authority
More cited than 63.0%

municipal board of health plumbing inspector

How later courts described this case

  • municipal board of health plumbing inspector

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Bodine, J.

Belator claims that he was appointed plumbing inspector on February 25th, 1936, for a term of live .years by virtue of a resolution by the Mayor and Common Council of the Borough of Kenilworth. The defendant claims to hold the office by appointment made by the Board of Health on January 24th, 1940.

Local Boards of Health have the power to appoint officers and agents.

R. S.

26:3—19. The relator relies upon

Larkey

v.

Bayonne,

123

N. J. L.

134;

affirmed,

124

Id.

172. In that case the City of Bayonne was governed under the Walsh Act, and the commissioners elected under the provisions of that act had the power of pre-existing Boards of Health. J’he Mayor and Common Council of a borough have no such power.

R. S.

26:3-1 directed the establishment of local Boards of Health. Such board existed in the Borough of Kenilworth

*44

and as we have seen had the power to employ officers and agents. The action of the Mayor and Common Council was beyond its power.'

If the appointment had been made by the Board of Health it could have been for a five year term.

Bodnar

v.

Board of Health of

Carteret, 117

N. J. L.

527. The relator was appointed by the Board of Health for the term of one 3rear before his designation by the Mayor and Common Council and continued to receive annual reappointments for three years thereafter. Suffice it that the Mayor and Common Council could not intrude upon the duties delegated by law to the local Board of Health in a municipality not governed by the Commission Government Act.

What rights the relator may have as an exempt fireman cannot be determined in this proceeding, because it was not pleaded and sufficient proofs were not adduced in order to determine an issue which was not property presented.

The relator seems not, on his showing, to be entitled to a judgment of ouster and the proceeding will be dismissed.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.