Case Name: ARTHUR E. ROMANO, ALBERT M. BOGATH AND JOHN A. NATIVO, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. EUGENE E. DEMAREST, HENRY C. SAVINO, ARTHUR C. MAURELLO AND ETHEL M. HOYT, CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF HACKENSACK, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS; WALTER E. NOWAKOWSKI, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. EUGENE E. DEMAREST, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT
Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1961-01-24
Citations: 34 N.J. 119
Docket Number: 
Parties: ARTHUR E. ROMANO, ALBERT M. BOGATH AND JOHN A. NATIVO, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. EUGENE E. DEMAREST, HENRY C. SAVINO, ARTHUR C. MAURELLO AND ETHEL M. HOYT, CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF HACKENSACK, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. WALTER E. NOWAKOWSKI, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. EUGENE E. DEMAREST, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Reports
Volume: 34
Pages: 119–120

Head Matter:
ARTHUR E. ROMANO, ALBERT M. BOGATH AND JOHN A. NATIVO, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. EUGENE E. DEMAREST, HENRY C. SAVINO, ARTHUR C. MAURELLO AND ETHEL M. HOYT, CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF HACKENSACK, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. WALTER E. NOWAKOWSKI, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. EUGENE E. DEMAREST, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Argued January 23, 24, 1961
Decided January 24, 1961.
Mr. Ralph W. Ghandless argued the cause for the appellants (Messrs. Ghandless, Weller & Kramer, attorneys).
Mr. John W. Leyden argued the cause for the respondents.

Opinion:
Pee Ctjeiam.
On October 8, 1959 after a recall election in which all incumbents were recalled and new couneilmen elected for the unexpired terms, plaintiff Nowakowski was elected mayor. In May 1960 the couneilmen purported to hold an organization meeting pursuant to R. 8. 40:81-7, at which defendant Demarest was "elected" mayor by a maj ority of the council members.
We are satisfied that the recall of the former mayor and couneilmen created a vacancy in the office of mayor which the new couneilmen properly filled by the election of this plaintiff. The statute referred to above, calling for an organization meeting after a municipal election, does not apply.
The remaining question is whether the mayor holds office for a fixed term or serves at the pleasure of the council. We are satisfied that the statute contemplated a term coextensive with the terms of the couneilmen, and that there was no power to unseat him and to elect another in his stead.
The judgment is accordingly reversed and the matter remanded with instructions to enter judgment for the plaintiffs in harmony with this opinion. The mandate shall issue immediately.
For reversal—Chief Justice Weintbatjb, and Justices Jacobs, Fbarcis, Peoctoe, Hall, Schettiro and Haneiian—7.
For affirmance—None.