From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Atlantic City

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division
Apr 6, 1949
3 N.J. Super. 62 (App. Div. 1949)

Opinion

Argued March 14, 1949 —

Decided April 6, 1949.

Appeal from Superior Court

Before Judges JACOBS, EASTWOOD and BIGELOW.

Mr. Harold W. Bennett argued the cause of the appellants-experts.

Mr. William Elmer Brown, Jr., argued the cause for the City of Atlantic City and its officials.


This is an appeal from the refusal of the Honorable Frank T. Lloyd, one of the judges of the Superior Court, to appoint a commissioner to take testimony in Illinois as a step in an investigation into the affairs of Atlantic City which was begun last spring by one of the justices of the former Supreme Court, under authority of R.S. 40:6-1 et seq. The appellant, Mr. Harold W. Bennett, is an expert prosecuting the investigation under appointment by the Supreme Court Justice, and he has no other interest in the matter. His only concern is to carry out the orders of his superior. He is not even a resident of Atlantic City. The rule is fundamental that only a person aggrieved is permitted to appeal from an order or judgment of a court, Green v. Blackwell, 32 N.J. Eq. 768 ( E. A. 1880), and only a person directly affected by the action of an administrative body or officer may challenge it, Jersey City v. Traphagen, 53 N.J.L. 434 ( E. A. 1891). Mr. Bennett is not aggrieved and he has no interest in the matter, and therefore the appeal will be dismissed.


Summaries of

In re Atlantic City

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division
Apr 6, 1949
3 N.J. Super. 62 (App. Div. 1949)
Case details for

In re Atlantic City

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE AFFAIRS OF THE CITY OF…

Court:Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division

Date published: Apr 6, 1949

Citations

3 N.J. Super. 62 (App. Div. 1949)
65 A.2d 552

Citing Cases

State v. Weber

State v. Smith, 307 N.J. Super. 1, 9 (App. Div. 1997) (quoting State v. Pierson, 22 3 N.J. Super. 62, 66…

State v. Otis Elevator Co.

In view of the lower court's finding, which we sustain, that Grenthal had not established any valid claim to…