Dodd v. Consolidated Traction Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Dodd v. Consolidated Traction Co.

31 A. 980, 57 N.J.L. 482, 28 Vroom 482, 1895 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 101

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided February 15, 1895·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Beasley, Chief Justice.

The defendant is entitled to judgment on this demurrer.

The boughs of the trees that were trimmed overhung the street, and were subject to removal by the municipal authori[483] ties whenever the public exigency or convenience required it. The city had conferred on the defendant the right to extend its wires, in the usual mode, along the streets; and such authority involved, by implication, the competency to do whatever was reasonably necessary to effect the end in view. Whatever the city could have done to carry into effect the project in question, the defendant could do.

On this demurrer the defendant is entitled to judgment.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Beasley, Chief Justice.

The defendant is entitled to judgment on this demurrer.

The boughs of the trees that were trimmed overhung the street, and were subject to removal by the municipal authori[483] ties whenever the public exigency or convenience required it. The city had conferred on the defendant the right to extend its wires, in the usual mode, along the streets; and such authority involved, by implication, the competency to do whatever was reasonably necessary to effect the end in view. Whatever the city could have done to carry into effect the project in question, the defendant could do.

On this demurrer the defendant is entitled to judgment.

Dodd v. Consolidated Traction Co., 31 A. 980, 57 N.J.L. 482, 28 Vroom 482, 1895 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 101 (N.J. 1895).

Pincite

31 A. 980 (Dodd v. Consolidated Traction Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related