Mayor of Jersey City v. Speer

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Mayor of Jersey City v. Speer

76 A. 1037, 79 N.J.L. 598, 50 Vroom 598, 1910 N.J. LEXIS 201

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Mayor of Jersey City v. Speer. Read the opinion of the Court — 78 N.J.L. 34 →

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided June 20, 1910·Published

Opinion

Per Cueiam.

We agree with the Supreme Court in its construction of the supplement of 1891 to the so-called Martin act (Pamph. L. 1886, p. 149; Gen. Stat., p. 3370; Pamph. L. 1891, p. 393; Gen. Stat., p. 3384, pl. 451), as expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Garrison in that court. We find it unnecessary to pass upon the constitutional question discussed in that opinion.

The judgment under review should be affirmed, with costs.

For affirmance — Ti-ie Chancellor, Chiee Justice; Swayze, Trenchaed, Bergen, Minturn, Bogbrt, Vredenburgh, Vroom, Gray, Congdon, JJ. 11.

For reversal — None.

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

Per Cueiam.

We agree with the Supreme Court in its construction of the supplement of 1891 to the so-called Martin act (Pamph. L. 1886, p. 149; Gen. Stat., p. 3370; Pamph. L. 1891, p. 393; Gen. Stat., p. 3384, pl. 451), as expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Garrison in that court. We find it unnecessary to pass upon the constitutional question discussed in that opinion.

The judgment under review should be affirmed, with costs.

For affirmance — Ti-ie Chancellor, Chiee Justice; Swayze, Trenchaed, Bergen, Minturn, Bogbrt, Vredenburgh, Vroom, Gray, Congdon, JJ. 11.

For reversal — None.

Mayor of Jersey City v. Speer, 76 A. 1037, 79 N.J.L. 598, 50 Vroom 598, 1910 N.J. LEXIS 201 (N.J. 1910).

Pincite

76 A. 1037 (Mayor of Jersey City v. Speer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.