Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

91 N.J.L. 317

Browne v. King

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided October 11, 1917

Supreme Court of New Jersey · decided 1917-10-11

Browne claims to be health officer of Paterson. Dr. Clay is in possession of the office. Previous litigation has been inconclusive as to the right to the office. The Supreme Court, on a certiorari by Dr. Clay, reviewed action of the civil service commission adverse to him and dismissed the writ upon the ground that Dr. Browne was entitled to the office.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1935

1 state decisions

Relies on School District v. Mannion

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

“Let the application be denied, with costs · Decided 1917-10-11

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Pee Curiam.

¶1By this appeal the appellant seeks to bring before this court the order of the Supreme Court discharging its rule to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue requiring the respondents to pay to the appellant the salary of the health officer of the city of Paterson.

¶2*319Passing the question whether proceedings in mandamus should be reviewed by appeal or by writ of error, it is clear that such appeal, being in lieu of a writ of error, lies only in ease the appellant would have been entitled to that writ prior to July 4th, 1912. Pamph. L. 1912, p. 377, § 25.

¶3It is, however, settled that a writ of error does not lie to remove into this court the order by the Supreme Court discharging a rule to show cause why a mandamus should not issue excepting in cases decided in the Supreme Court upon the constitutionality of a statute. Neptune Township v. Mammon, 73 N. J. L. 816. The present case not being within this exception the appeal must be dismissed.

/91/njl/317 · .json · Public domain