Currie v. Mayor of Jersey City

130 A. 918, 98 N.J. Eq. 689, 13 Stock. 689, 1925 N.J. LEXIS 601
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided October 19, 1925·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

Of the five points specifically taken up and decided by the learned vice-chancellor, only two are urged on this appeal. They are, first, that the filing in the county clerk’s office of the Currie map (which he properly held to be an unofficial filing), plus the adoption of grades by the city, worked a complete dedication; second, that the deeds made by complainants (in which intent to dedicate was expressly disclaimed) were a confirmation of an original dedicatory intent.

We conclude that the decree should be affirmed, and for the reasons given in the opinion of Vice-Chancellor Griffin so far as they deal with the points now argued. As to other points considered by him, but not raised here, we, naturally, express no opinion.

For affirmance — The Chibe-Justice, Pabkbe, Kalisch, Black, Katzenbach, Campbell, Lloyd, White, Van Busker k, McGlennon, Kays, JJ. 11.

For reversal — Paekee, J. 1.

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

Currie v. Mayor of Jersey City, 130 A. 918, 98 N.J. Eq. 689, 13 Stock. 689, 1925 N.J. LEXIS 601 (N.J. 1925).

130 A. 918 (Currie v. Mayor of Jersey City) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Brookdale Pk. Homes v. Tp. of Bridgewater
280 A.2d 227 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1971)
NJ Highway Authority v. Johnson
113 A.2d 831 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1955)