Brown v. "Street Lighting District Number One"

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Brown v. "Street Lighting District Number One"

58 A. 115, 71 N.J.L. 79, 42 Vroom 79, 1904 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 95

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Brown v. "Street Lighting District Number One". Read the opinion of the Court — 69 N.J.L. 485 →

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided June 13, 1904·Published

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Tan Syckel, J.

The prosecutor sued out the writ in this case to set aside a contract awarded to the Carteret Electric 'Light and Power Company for lighting Woodbridge.

The prosecutor is a taxpayer and is a resident in said lighting district.

[80]*80Ephraim Cutter, one of the commissioners who awarded the contract to the Carteret company, is a stockholder in said company, and therefore the contract is without validity and should be set aside. Winans v. Crane, 7 Vroom 394; Traction Company v. Board of Works, 27 Id. 431; Foster v. Cape May, 31 Id. 78.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Tan Syckel, J.

The prosecutor sued out the writ in this case to set aside a contract awarded to the Carteret Electric 'Light and Power Company for lighting Woodbridge.

The prosecutor is a taxpayer and is a resident in said lighting district.

[80]*80Ephraim Cutter, one of the commissioners who awarded the contract to the Carteret company, is a stockholder in said company, and therefore the contract is without validity and should be set aside. Winans v. Crane, 7 Vroom 394; Traction Company v. Board of Works, 27 Id. 431; Foster v. Cape May, 31 Id. 78.

Brown v. "Street Lighting District Number One", 58 A. 115, 71 N.J.L. 79, 42 Vroom 79, 1904 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 95 (N.J. 1904).

Pincite

58 A. 115 (Brown v. "Street Lighting District Number One") — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.