Case Name: VICTOR L. WOODHULL, WILLIAM E. WIDERKEHR, RICHARD L. STARK, ARTHUR G. TOOMER, Jr., RICHARD J. LYONS AND HAROLD W. WATSON, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. J. RAYMOND MANAHAN AND E. MARCO STIRONE, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, AND DAVID E. NOONAN, RUSSELL J. NONCARROW AND ANTHONY J. CATTANO, DEFENDANTS
Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1964-12-14
Citations: 43 N.J. 445
Docket Number: 
Parties: VICTOR L. WOODHULL, WILLIAM E. WIDERKEHR, RICHARD L. STARK, ARTHUR G. TOOMER, Jr., RICHARD J. LYONS AND HAROLD W. WATSON, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. J. RAYMOND MANAHAN AND E. MARCO STIRONE, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, AND DAVID E. NOONAN, RUSSELL J. NONCARROW AND ANTHONY J. CATTANO, DEFENDANTS.
Judges: Haul and HaNemaN, JJ., join in this opinion.
Reporter: New Jersey Reports
Volume: 43
Pages: 445–447

Head Matter:
VICTOR L. WOODHULL, WILLIAM E. WIDERKEHR, RICHARD L. STARK, ARTHUR G. TOOMER, Jr., RICHARD J. LYONS AND HAROLD W. WATSON, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. J. RAYMOND MANAHAN AND E. MARCO STIRONE, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, AND DAVID E. NOONAN, RUSSELL J. NONCARROW AND ANTHONY J. CATTANO, DEFENDANTS.
Argued November 30, 1964
Decided December 14, 1964.
Mr. Henry M. Hoyt argued the cause for plaintiffs-appellants (Messrs. Corbin, Hoyt & Watson, attorneys).
Mr. Myron J. Bromberg argued the cause for defendant-respondent Manahan (Messrs. Porzio, Bromberg & Newman, attorneys).
Mr. Alvin Weiss argued the cause for defendant-respondent Stirone (Messrs. Hiker, Danzig, Scherer & Brown, attorneys).

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered
PER CuRIAM.
The Appellate Division held the mayor of the Town of Morristown has the power to veto appointments by the Common Council of the town attorney and committees of the Council. Woodhull v. Manahan, 85 N. J. Super. 157 (1964). A petition for certification was filed and because of time limitations, we directed argument on the merits prior to action upon the petition.
The legislative treatment of the subject is obscure. We cannot be confident of an answer either way and hence we are content to accept the result reached by the Appellate Division, leaving it to the Legislature to provide otherwise if its intent was misconceived.
The petition for certification is granted, and the judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed. No costs.