Board of Chosen Freeholders v. Buck

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Board of Chosen Freeholders v. Buck

7 A. 860, 49 N.J.L. 228, 1886 N.J. LEXIS 8

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedNovember 15, 1886

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 7 A. 860 (Board of Chosen Freeholders v. Buck) 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

Board of Chosen Freeholders v. Buck, 7 A. 860, 49 N.J.L. 228, 1886 N.J. LEXIS 8 (N.J. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Beasley, Chief Justice.

The statute entitled “An act to make certain roads, constructed by commissioners under the authority of the legislature, county roads, and to provide for the payment of the expenses of constructing by the county, and for the mode of maintaining and repairing the same” (Pamph. L. 1883, p. 225), is the foundation of the suit, and as we think that this act is applicable to the county of Hudson alone, and can never be applied in any other locality, and is therefore plainly unconstitutional, the judgment in this case must be reversed.

For affirmance — None. For reversal — The Chief Justice, Depue, Dixon, Magie, Parker, Reed, Scudder, Van Syckel, Brown, Clement, Cole, Whitaker. 12.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Beasley, Chief Justice.

The statute entitled “An act to make certain roads, constructed by commissioners under the authority of the legislature, county roads, and to provide for the payment of the expenses of constructing by the county, and for the mode of maintaining and repairing the same” (Pamph. L. 1883, p. 225), is the foundation of the suit, and as we think that this act is applicable to the county of Hudson alone, and can never be applied in any other locality, and is therefore plainly unconstitutional, the judgment in this case must be reversed.

For affirmance — None. For reversal — The Chief Justice, Depue, Dixon, Magie, Parker, Reed, Scudder, Van Syckel, Brown, Clement, Cole, Whitaker. 12.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A. 860, 49 N.J.L. 228, 1886 N.J. LEXIS 8, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-chosen-freeholders-v-buck-nj-1886.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack