Opinion

Fitch v. Smith

  • 57 N.J.L. 526
  • 28 Vroom 526
  • 34 A. 1058
  • 1895 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 84
Court
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Filed
Feb 15, 1895
Status
Published
Author
Dixon
On the bench
Dixon
Cited by
3 cases
Authority
More cited than 64.0%

The opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Dixon, J.

Assuming for present purposes that the position of principal' of a public school is, as the relator insists, *530 a public office, still it appears that when the relator was chosen to that office by the former board of trustees, the office was held by an incumbent whose-term would not end until after the expiration of that board and the organization of a new board pursuant to the act of May 25th, 1894. Pamph. L., p. 506. Such a choice could give the relator no title to the office, as the power of appointment belonged to the board which would be in existence when the office became vacant. Bownes v. Meehan, 16 Vroom 189 .

There is nothing in the letter of the county superintendent which can entitle the relator to the remedy now sought. Buren v. Albertson, 25 Vroom 72 .

Leave to file an information in the nature of quo warranto should be denied, and the rule to show cause is discharged, with costs.

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.