Attorney-General ex rel. Haight v. Love
Supreme Court of New Jersey
In error to Supreme Court. For opinion of the Supreme Court se.e antep. 14.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Van Syckel, J.
This was the ordinary proceeding by quo warranto, instituted in the Supreme Court, to test the right of the defendant to the office of city collector of Jersey City. The judgment of the Supreme Court having' been adverse to the relator, has been brought here for review.
By the information filed in this cause, it appears that the defendant was appointed city collector under the charter of Jersey City, passed March 31st, 1871, for the term of one *477year from May 21st, 1872, at which time he was duly qualified, and assumed the duties of the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Marbury v. MadisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1803
- Marshall v. HarwoodCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1853
- Brodie v. CampbellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- Jump v. SpenceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1867
- State ex rel. Brown v. ConstableOhio Supreme Court · 1835
3Cited by12 opinions
- In Re Tenure Hearing of GrossmanNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1974
- Monte v. MilatNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1952
- Berardi v. RutterNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1956
- Tappy v. State ex rel. ErvinSupreme Court of Florida · 1955
- Golaine v. CardinaleNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1976
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.