Brodhead v. Freeholders of Hunterdon

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Brodhead v. Freeholders of Hunterdon

72 N.J.L. 118, 1905 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 121

DecidedFebruary 27, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 72 N.J.L. 118 (Brodhead v. Freeholders of Hunterdon) 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

Brodhead v. Freeholders of Hunterdon, 72 N.J.L. 118, 1905 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 121 (N.J. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Swayze, J.

This case involves a resolution passed by the defendants July 8th, 1903, providing for a contract with the surrogate of Hunterdon for indexing the records in his office and authorizing the supply committee to order the necessary index books.

[119]*119The resolution was rescinded, with the consent of the surrogate, on November 11th, 1903. Meantime the index books had been ordered on August 11th, 1903. The books were completed some time in December, 1903, and delivered prior to January 5th, 1904; the bill for $210 was ordered by the defendant to be paid January 2d, 1904, and paid January 4th, about an hour before this writ was served. The writ was allowed December 31st, 1903.

The testimony shows that the prosecutor knew of the original resolution in July or August, 1903. The witness says it was probably in July. In view of this, and the further fact that the books had to be specially manufactured for the county, we think the prosecutor failed to move with sufficient promptness when he waited until the books had been made and delivered to the county, and for this laches the writ must be dismissed. The cases cited in Allan v. Freeholders of Hunterdon, ante p. 116, vindicate this result.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Swayze, J.

This case involves a resolution passed by the defendants July 8th, 1903, providing for a contract with the surrogate of Hunterdon for indexing the records in his office and authorizing the supply committee to order the necessary index books.

[119]*119The resolution was rescinded, with the consent of the surrogate, on November 11th, 1903. Meantime the index books had been ordered on August 11th, 1903. The books were completed some time in December, 1903, and delivered prior to January 5th, 1904; the bill for $210 was ordered by the defendant to be paid January 2d, 1904, and paid January 4th, about an hour before this writ was served. The writ was allowed December 31st, 1903.

The testimony shows that the prosecutor knew of the original resolution in July or August, 1903. The witness says it was probably in July. In view of this, and the further fact that the books had to be specially manufactured for the county, we think the prosecutor failed to move with sufficient promptness when he waited until the books had been made and delivered to the county, and for this laches the writ must be dismissed. The cases cited in Allan v. Freeholders of Hunterdon, ante p. 116, vindicate this result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 N.J.L. 118, 1905 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brodhead-v-freeholders-of-hunterdon-nj-1905.