State v. Blauvelt

Supreme Court of New Jersey

State v. Blauvelt

33 N.J.L. 36

DecidedFebruary 15, 1868

StatusPublished

This text of 33 N.J.L. 36 (State v. Blauvelt) 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

State v. Blauvelt, 33 N.J.L. 36 (N.J. 1868).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Dalrimple, J.

The reason relied on for setting aside the return of the surveyors of the highways is, that the damages of the prosecutors, whose lands are taken, were assessed to them by the name and description of “ the devisees of Solomon F. Vanderbeck, late of the township of New Barbadoes, in the county of Bergen, deceased,” and not by their individual names. It has been held by this court, that an assessment of damages to the land owners whose lands are taken for a public highway, should specify the names of the persons whose lands are so taken, and the amount of damages assessed to each. State v. Oliver et al., 4 Zab. 133; State v. Fischer, 2 Dutcher 129. In the first named ease, the assessment was to William Edgar and others; and in the other, to Messrs. J. & J. W. Meeks. Both were held bad. The assessment before us is still worse. It neither mentions the names of the individual owners, or any of them, the amount assessed to each, nor whether they are joint tenants, tenants in common, or in severalty. An assessment to heirs or devisees by that designation alone, is neither in consonance with the statute, (Nix. Dig. 748) nor according to the doctrine of the cases referred to.

The return of the surveyors must, therefore, be set aside.

Cited in State, Charlier, pros., v. Woodruff, 7 Vr. 205; State, Swanton, pros., v. Pierson, 8 Vr. 368.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Dalrimple, J.

The reason relied on for setting aside the return of the surveyors of the highways is, that the damages of the prosecutors, whose lands are taken, were assessed to them by the name and description of “ the devisees of Solomon F. Vanderbeck, late of the township of New Barbadoes, in the county of Bergen, deceased,” and not by their individual names. It has been held by this court, that an assessment of damages to the land owners whose lands are taken for a public highway, should specify the names of the persons whose lands are so taken, and the amount of damages assessed to each. State v. Oliver et al., 4 Zab. 133; State v. Fischer, 2 Dutcher 129. In the first named ease, the assessment was to William Edgar and others; and in the other, to Messrs. J. & J. W. Meeks. Both were held bad. The assessment before us is still worse. It neither mentions the names of the individual owners, or any of them, the amount assessed to each, nor whether they are joint tenants, tenants in common, or in severalty. An assessment to heirs or devisees by that designation alone, is neither in consonance with the statute, (Nix. Dig. 748) nor according to the doctrine of the cases referred to.

The return of the surveyors must, therefore, be set aside.

Cited in State, Charlier, pros., v. Woodruff, 7 Vr. 205; State, Swanton, pros., v. Pierson, 8 Vr. 368.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 N.J.L. 36, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-blauvelt-nj-1868.