Neinaber v. Township of Weehawken

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Neinaber v. Township of Weehawken

57 A. 267, 70 N.J.L. 630, 41 Vroom 630, 1904 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 218

DecidedFebruary 23, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 57 A. 267 (Neinaber v. Township of Weehawken) 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

Neinaber v. Township of Weehawken, 57 A. 267, 70 N.J.L. 630, 41 Vroom 630, 1904 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 218 (N.J. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an action to recover for damage done to the property of the plaintiff by surface water escaping from a broken sower. The charge against the Bergen Turnpike Company is that it maintained a wall along its turnpike, which, while in repair, acted as a dam and prevented the escaping water from flowing upon plaintiff's land; that they allowed this wall to become ruinous, and that by reason thereof it ceased to act as a dam and allowed the escaping water to flood the plaintiff's premises.

The declaration fails to show that the turnpike company was under any obligation to the plaintiff to keep this wall in repair. The mere allegation that such a duty existed is not sufficient. In order to show liability on the part of the defendant it is necessary for the plaintiff to set out the facts from which the alleged duty arose. This the pleader has failed to do.

The defendant is entitled to judgment on the demurrer.

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

Per Curiam.

This is an action to recover for damage done to the property of the plaintiff by surface water escaping from a broken sower. The charge against the Bergen Turnpike Company is that it maintained a wall along its turnpike, which, while in repair, acted as a dam and prevented the escaping water from flowing upon plaintiff's land; that they allowed this wall to become ruinous, and that by reason thereof it ceased to act as a dam and allowed the escaping water to flood the plaintiff's premises.

The declaration fails to show that the turnpike company was under any obligation to the plaintiff to keep this wall in repair. The mere allegation that such a duty existed is not sufficient. In order to show liability on the part of the defendant it is necessary for the plaintiff to set out the facts from which the alleged duty arose. This the pleader has failed to do.

The defendant is entitled to judgment on the demurrer.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A. 267, 70 N.J.L. 630, 41 Vroom 630, 1904 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neinaber-v-township-of-weehawken-nj-1904.