State v. Mayor of Rutherford

29 A. 156, 56 N.J.L. 340, 27 Vroom 340, 1893 N.J. LEXIS 1
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided November 15, 1893·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In affirming the judgment of the Supreme Court in this case, this court does not decide whether the expense of searching the title of the land within the avenue is assessable as [341]*341part of the cost of grading.” The reasons assigned do not cover such an objection, and the unquestionable expenses of the grading were sufficient to make up the total sum assessed.

For affirmance—The Chancellor, Dixon, Garrison, Reed, Van Syokel, Bogert, Brown, Phelps, Smith. 9.

For reversal—None.

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

State v. Mayor of Rutherford, 29 A. 156, 56 N.J.L. 340, 27 Vroom 340, 1893 N.J. LEXIS 1 (N.J. 1893).

29 A. 156 (State v. Mayor of Rutherford) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

McNALLYS. v. Tp. of Teaneck
334 A.2d 67 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1975)