Deubel v. Millard Construction Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Deubel v. Millard Construction Co.

81 A. 1133, 82 N.J.L. 523, 53 Vroom 523, 1911 N.J. LEXIS 242

DecidedNovember 20, 1911

StatusPublished

This text of 81 A. 1133 (Deubel v. Millard Construction Co.) 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

Deubel v. Millard Construction Co., 81 A. 1133, 82 N.J.L. 523, 53 Vroom 523, 1911 N.J. LEXIS 242 (N.J. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review is affirmed for the reasons stated in-the opinion of Mr. Justice Reed in the Supreme Court.

In order to guard against an implication that might be drawn from the language of the opinion that the ease of Beseman v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 21 Vroom 235, affords any justification for a direct invasion of private property we desire to cite the case of Costigan v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 25 Id. 233, in which the distinction between injuries Necessarily incident to the operation of a steam railroad and the direct invasion of private property is pointed out by Mr. Justice Depue.

For affirmaince—The Chancellor, Ci-iiee Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Parker, Bergen, Vooritees, Kalisch, Bogert, Vredenburgh, Congdon, White, JJ. 12.

For reversal—None.

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

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review is affirmed for the reasons stated in-the opinion of Mr. Justice Reed in the Supreme Court.

In order to guard against an implication that might be drawn from the language of the opinion that the ease of Beseman v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 21 Vroom 235, affords any justification for a direct invasion of private property we desire to cite the case of Costigan v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 25 Id. 233, in which the distinction between injuries Necessarily incident to the operation of a steam railroad and the direct invasion of private property is pointed out by Mr. Justice Depue.

For affirmaince—The Chancellor, Ci-iiee Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Parker, Bergen, Vooritees, Kalisch, Bogert, Vredenburgh, Congdon, White, JJ. 12.

For reversal—None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 A. 1133, 82 N.J.L. 523, 53 Vroom 523, 1911 N.J. LEXIS 242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deubel-v-millard-construction-co-nj-1911.