State ex rel. Ga Nun v. Lefferts
State ex rel. Ga Nun v. Lefferts
Opinion of the Court
This is an information in the nature of a writ of quo warranto, filed by Alfred E. Ga Nun, who thereby seeks to oust Lefferts, incumbent of the office of tax assessor in the town of Nutley, and to have himself declared entitled thereto. The information alleges that Lefferts, the incumbent, has held the office unlawfully since August 1st, 1928, and that the relator was on July 31st, 1928, duly appointed to the office for a period beginning August 1st, 1928, and ending the third Tuesday in May, 1929; that the relator demanded the office and the books, papers, &c., but was refused. The incumbent replies, claiming a right to hold the office until his successor is appointed, and denying that the relator was legally appointed.
Lefferts, the incumbent, was elected assessor, taking office July 21st, 1921, when he was elected for a period of three years. In July of 1924, 1925, 1926 and 1927 he was reelected, but each time for the period of one year. The election of July 12th, 1927, provided that his term of office was to expire on June 30th, 1928, since which time he has not been elected.
Without determining the status of the incumbent, we think it clear that the relator is without standing to contest the title to the office. In the recent case of Noccolini v. Ubertino, 96 N. J. L. 306, it was held that “where the law prescribes the term of a municipal officer, it is beyond the power of the governing body of the municipality to appoint for a greater or less term.”
The legislature in its-wisdom has declared the term of office of the assessor in the present ease to be for the term of three years and that this term shall expire on the 30th day of June at the expiration of such period. The relator, for reasons which do not appear, was appointed by the commissioner of revenue and finance on July 31st, 1928, to hold office for a period beginning August 1st, 1928, and terminating on the third Tue'sday of May, 1929. Such appointment under the authority of the case cited was a nullity, the
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.