Legal Opinion

State v. City of Orange

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided November 15, 1892PublishedCited by 5 opinions

On application for mandamus.

1Opinion of the Court

*100The opinion of the court was delivered by

Dixon, J.

The relator applies for a mandamus directing the city of Orange to pay him the salary attached to the office of city physician, for a time subsequent to October 17th, 1892, on which day the common council of the city passed a resolution declaring vacant that office previously held by him. He admits that he was appointed by the council under the eighth section of the city charter (Pamph. L. 1869, p. 182), which enacts that officers appointed thereunder shall continue in office until the office shall be declared vacant, but he insists-that by…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. State ex rel. Helfer v. SimonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1891

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Murnane v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
  2. Uffert v. VogtSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1900
  3. State v. DorlandSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1894
  4. Canfield v. DaviesSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1897
  5. State v. NealonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1905

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API