Auger & Simon Silk Dyeing Co. v. Mayor of Newark

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Auger & Simon Silk Dyeing Co. v. Mayor of Newark

96 A. 62, 88 N.J.L. 368, 3 Gummere 368, 1915 N.J. LEXIS 327

DecidedNovember 15, 1915

StatusPublished

This text of 96 A. 62 (Auger & Simon Silk Dyeing Co. v. Mayor of Newark) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Auger & Simon Silk Dyeing Co. v. Mayor of Newark, 96 A. 62, 88 N.J.L. 368, 3 Gummere 368, 1915 N.J. LEXIS 327 (N.J. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The determining question involved in the case was considered and disposed of in the opinion filed at this term in the case of the same plaintiff against the East Jersey Water Company and the Jersey City Supply Company. There was, in the present case, evidence from which the jury might infer that after the plaintiff had withdrawn water from the river and used it for djreing purposes it was returned to the river in a polluted condition. Such polluted discharge is forbidden by law, and is not the reasonable use of flowing water to which a riparian owner is entitled. For the reason given in the opinion above referred to, the judgment under review will be reversed and a new trial awarded.

For affirmance—Garrison, Trenchard, Blaoic, White, JJ. 4.

For reversal—The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Swayze, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, Vredenburgh, HepPENHEIMER, TAYLOR, JJ. 10.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The determining question involved in the case was considered and disposed of in the opinion filed at this term in the case of the same plaintiff against the East Jersey Water Company and the Jersey City Supply Company. There was, in the present case, evidence from which the jury might infer that after the plaintiff had withdrawn water from the river and used it for djreing purposes it was returned to the river in a polluted condition. Such polluted discharge is forbidden by law, and is not the reasonable use of flowing water to which a riparian owner is entitled. For the reason given in the opinion above referred to, the judgment under review will be reversed and a new trial awarded.

For affirmance—Garrison, Trenchard, Blaoic, White, JJ. 4.

For reversal—The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Swayze, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, Vredenburgh, HepPENHEIMER, TAYLOR, JJ. 10.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 A. 62, 88 N.J.L. 368, 3 Gummere 368, 1915 N.J. LEXIS 327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/auger-simon-silk-dyeing-co-v-mayor-of-newark-nj-1915.