City of Trenton v. Fowler-Thorne Co.

160 A.2d 131, 32 N.J. 256, 1960 N.J. LEXIS 201
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided April 25, 1960·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Pee Oueiam.

We think it unnecessary to decide whether the individual commissioner had authority to institute the action or whether defendant may inquire into the question. We agree with the majority opinion of the Appellate Division that in any event the issue was eliminated by ratification. The question whether the 6 or 16 3'"ear statute of limitations applies need not be considered.

The judgment is affirmed.

For affirmance—Chief Justice Weintraub, and Justices Burling, Eranois, Proctor, Hall and Sci-iettino—6.

For reversal—Hone.

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

City of Trenton v. Fowler-Thorne Co., 160 A.2d 131, 32 N.J. 256, 1960 N.J. LEXIS 201 (N.J. 1960).

160 A.2d 131 (City of Trenton v. Fowler-Thorne Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Port Liberte II Condominium Ass'n v. New Liberty Residential Urban Renewal Co.
86 A.3d 730 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2014)
Henry v. New Jersey Department of Human Services
9 A.3d 882 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 2010)
Kernan v. One Washington Park Urban Renewal Associates
713 A.2d 411 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1998)
Kranzel v. Zoning Hearing Board
75 Pa. D. & C.2d 253 (Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas, 1975)
A & B AUTO STORES v. City of Newark
248 A.2d 258 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1968)