In re Alston
This text of 40 A. 938 (In re Alston) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of General Session of the Peace primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
decided that the language of Section 4, standing alone, was broad enough to admit of such a construction as counsel contended for ; that is, that the word ‘1 change ’ ’ could be construed to mean alter ; but that the language of Section 5 restricted the word ‘ ‘ change ’ ’ in section 4, to mean change the course of. While there was authority given in the statute to lay out a new road, to change the course of a road already laid out, or to vacate a road, yet that there was no power given therein to widen a road.
The return of the commissioners was therefore set aside; and the Court refused to make an order taxing the costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
40 A. 938, 17 Del. 359, 1 Penne. 359, 1898 Del. LEXIS 32, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-alston-nygensess-1898.