State ex rel. Bumsted v. Henry
Supreme Court of New Jersey
These are two informations in the nature of writs of quo ivarranto instituted by two members of the excise board of Jersey City, appointed as such by the mayor of said city, under the provisions of Pamph.
Read the full summary
These are two informations in the nature of writs of quo ivarranto instituted by two members of the excise board of Jersey City, appointed as such by the mayor of said city, under the provisions of Pamph. L. 1903, p. 369. The writs are sued out against the defendants, who were appointed by the Court of Common Pleas of Hudson county to succeed the relators as excise commissioners, the appointments being made by the Court of Common Pleas of Hudson county under color of the provisions of the last section of the act of 1906. Pamph. L., p. 199. Demurrers have been filed to the informations and…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Reed, J.
The right of the defendants to hold the positions of excise commissioners is challenged upon this single ground, namely, that the fifth section of the act of 1906, supra, under the claimed authority of which section the appointment of the defendants was made by the Court of Common Pleas of Hudson county, is unconstitutional legislation. The section the validity of which is thus put in question reads as follows:
“5. Plereafter, in all instances where excise commissioners are now by law appointed by the mayor or governing body of any municipality…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- State ex rel. Loucks v. BradshawSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1893
- State ex rel. Parker v. Common Council of NewarkSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1894
- State v. HooverSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1895
3Cited by4 opinions
- Governmental Research Bureau, Inc. v. St. Louis CountySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1960
- Miele v. McGuireSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1960
- Meehan v. Board of Excise CommissionersSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1908
- State ex rel. Sheridan v. LankeringSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1912