Case Name: EUGENE W. MORRIS, RELATOR, v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND ARTHUR J. HAMLEY, TREASURER OF THE COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX, RESPONDENTS
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1931-02-13
Citations: 9 N.J. Misc. 309
Docket Number: 
Parties: EUGENE W. MORRIS, RELATOR, v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND ARTHUR J. HAMLEY, TREASURER OF THE COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX, RESPONDENTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 309–310

Head Matter:
EUGENE W. MORRIS, RELATOR, v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND ARTHUR J. HAMLEY, TREASURER OF THE COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX, RESPONDENTS.
Argued January 20, 1931
Decided February 13, 1931.
Before Justices Paekeb, Campbell and Bodine.
Eor the relator, David T. Wilentz.
Eor the respondents, William A. Stevens.

Opinion:
Pee Ctteiam.
The relator seeks a writ of mandamus directing the civil .service commission to certify his pay as a process server in the sheriff's office, Middlesex county, for the last half of September and the whole of October, 1930. The case comes before us on an agreed state of facts.
The Civil Service act of 1908 (Pamph. L. 235) had been adopted in Middlesex county and the relator was successful in a competitive examination held for the position of process server. He received a temporary appointment July 14th, 1930, for the vacation period. Prior to his appointment, the sheriff had abolished three positions held by court attendants, and the civil service commission placed the names of those who had held the position of court attendant upon the preferred eligible list for process server. The sheriff will not appoint one of those whose name appears on the preferred eligible list as process server, and the civil service •commission will not certify relator's pay.
The propriety of the action of the commission in placing-the names of the former court attendants upon the preferred, eligible list is challenged. The determination of this question is unnecessary to the decision of this case, and perhaps-should have been raised on certiorari.
Since the relator received a temporary appointment July 14th, 1930, he held over after two months' temporary service,, and is not entitled to certification. Shalvoy v. Johnson, 84 N. J. L. 134.
The rule will be discharged.