Case Name: EDWARD I. EDWARDS, COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY, APPELLANT, v. FREDERICK PETRY, Jr., RESPONDENT
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1917-06-18
Citations: 90 N.J.L. 670
Docket Number: 
Parties: EDWARD I. EDWARDS, COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY, APPELLANT, v. FREDERICK PETRY, Jr., RESPONDENT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 90
Pages: 670–672

Head Matter:
EDWARD I. EDWARDS, COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY, APPELLANT, v. FREDERICK PETRY, Jr., RESPONDENT.
Submitted March 15, 1917
Decided June 18, 1917.
On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which the following ' per curiam was filed:
•‘This is a writ of certiorari to review an order made by Mr. Justice Trenchard, under chapter 120 of the laws of 1915, providing for an order by a justice of the Supreme Court to enforce rights under the Civil Service ad.
“The sole question argued by the prosecutor was as to the power of the legislature to delegate to a justice of the Supreme Court this right to review.
“In the present case the defendant appealed to flic civil service commission and met with an, adverse decision, and thereupon’ applied to Mr. Justice Trenchard and secured an order reversing the action of tlie commission.
“Me do not find in the ease that Mr Justice Trenchard went further than to issue a rule to show cause on the comptroller, and the power to issue the writ was therefore challenged in limine. This involves the questions that were discussed in this court in New Brunswick v. McCann, 74 N. J. L. 171; Newark v. Kazinski, 86 Id. 59, and Summit v. Iarusso, 87 Id. 403.
“Me think that while the case presents some difficulty we are hound, nevertheless, to follow the last two eases, which seem to us controlling.
“Me think that the jurisdiction given to the justices of the Supreme Court, by the act under consideration, in no way interferes with the right of 1he Supreme Court to review the> entire case by certiorari, but superadds an additional step in a proceeding yliicli mar ultimately reach this court as a reviewing tribunal.
“Me are not tó be understood as approving of this character of legislation which quite insidiously results in unsettling the’ legal machinery of the court without gaining ultimately any substantial advantage io the litigant by the disarrangement.
“Me think this writ must be dismissed.”
For the appellant, John W. Wescott, attorney-general.
For the respondent, Linton Satterthwaite.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The judgment under review will be affirmed, for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Garrison, Bergen, Black, Wi-iite, Heppeniteimer, Williams, Gardner, JJ. 9.
For reversal—None.