Frazer v. Public Service Railway Co.

105 A. 391, 89 N.J. Eq. 569, 4 Stock. 569, 1917 N.J. LEXIS 501
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided June 18, 1917·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The decree is affirmed, with costs. We agree with the vice-chancellor’s construction of the powers vested in the Passaic valley sewerage commissioners and his definition of the word “necessary.” We express no opinion on the question whether the covenants in the contract between the sewerage commissioners and the contractors can avail the complainant.

For affirmance — Garrison, Swayze, Trenchard, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, White, Heppenheimer, Williams, Taylor, Gardner — 12.

For reversal — None.

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

Frazer v. Public Service Railway Co., 105 A. 391, 89 N.J. Eq. 569, 4 Stock. 569, 1917 N.J. LEXIS 501 (N.J. 1917).

105 A. 391 (Frazer v. Public Service Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re Application of Hackensack Water Co.
125 A.2d 281 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1956)