Case Name: JOHN T. BYRNE, PROSECUTOR, v. THE CITY OF WILDWOOD, IN THE COUNTY OF CAPE MAY, AND JOHN HARRIS, RESPONDENTS
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1921-01-03
Citations: 95 N.J.L. 287
Docket Number: 
Parties: JOHN T. BYRNE, PROSECUTOR, v. THE CITY OF WILDWOOD, IN THE COUNTY OF CAPE MAY, AND JOHN HARRIS, RESPONDENTS.
Judges: Before Justices Swayzb, Pahkhii and Black.
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 95
Pages: 287–288

Head Matter:
JOHN T. BYRNE, PROSECUTOR, v. THE CITY OF WILDWOOD, IN THE COUNTY OF CAPE MAY, AND JOHN HARRIS, RESPONDENTS.
Argued November 3, 1920
Decided January 3, 1921.
The governing body of a municipality may employ special counsel to defend litigation for the city, but may not under that guise take out of the hands of the city counsel any particular case or class of cases and confide their management to others.
On certiorari.
Before Justices Swayzb, Pahkhii and Black.
For the prosecutor, Clarence L. Cole.
Fro se, John Harris.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Swayze, J.
The question involved is the right of tire commission of Wildwood to employ special counsel in litigation. By the resolution fixing his salary, the city solicitor is required to draw all ordinances and contracts or pass upon the same before action is taken thereon and give such legal advice as may be required by the board of commissioners. The rule that governs the present case is that established by the Court of Errors and Appeals in State, Hoxsey, v. Paterson, 39 N. J. L. 72. This justifies the employment of associate counsel in defending suits in which the city is interested, but does not allow the city commission under the guise of such employment to withdraw and take out of the hands of the city counsel any particular case or classes of cases and to confide their management to others.
The resolution now under review was that John Harris be employed to defend certain writs of certioraii for the city. This seems to be limited to the writs of certiorari specified and is work not covered by the resolution fixing the salary of the city counsel. We think the employment of Harris was within the powers of the city commission.
Let the writ be dismissed, with costs.