Suburban Land Improvement Co. v. Mayor of Vailsburgh

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Suburban Land Improvement Co. v. Mayor of Vailsburgh

53 A. 388, 68 N.J.L. 311, 1902 N.J. LEXIS 164

DecidedNovember 17, 1902

StatusPublished

This text of 53 A. 388 (Suburban Land Improvement Co. v. Mayor of Vailsburgh) 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

Suburban Land Improvement Co. v. Mayor of Vailsburgh, 53 A. 388, 68 N.J.L. 311, 1902 N.J. LEXIS 164 (N.J. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was-delivered by

Garrison, J.

The substance of this litigation is set out in the opinion delivered in the Supreme Court. 38 Vroom 461. That opinion disposes of the only issues presented by the reasons assigned by the prosecutor for the annulment of the [312]*312ordinance in question, which, were that the defendants had not the power to require- the construction of a sidewalk where one- already existed, and that to do so in the present case was an unreasonable exercise of such power. The first is a decision upon matter of law, in which we concur; the' second is a finding of fact, by which we are bound.

Whether the ordinance was void for uncertainty in the de-' seription of the work that it imposed in the first instance upon the prosecutor was not dealt with in the court below, .and cannot be decided here, because it is not covered by any of the reasons that were assigned. The judgment of the Supreme- Court is affirmed,, with costs.

For affirmance—The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Dixon, Garrison, Collins, Hendrickson, Pitney, Voorhees. ' 8. For reversal—Adams, Yredenburgi-i, Yroom. 3.

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

The opinion of the court was-delivered by

Garrison, J.

The substance of this litigation is set out in the opinion delivered in the Supreme Court. 38 Vroom 461. That opinion disposes of the only issues presented by the reasons assigned by the prosecutor for the annulment of the [312]*312ordinance in question, which, were that the defendants had not the power to require- the construction of a sidewalk where one- already existed, and that to do so in the present case was an unreasonable exercise of such power. The first is a decision upon matter of law, in which we concur; the' second is a finding of fact, by which we are bound.

Whether the ordinance was void for uncertainty in the de-' seription of the work that it imposed in the first instance upon the prosecutor was not dealt with in the court below, .and cannot be decided here, because it is not covered by any of the reasons that were assigned. The judgment of the Supreme- Court is affirmed,, with costs.

For affirmance—The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Dixon, Garrison, Collins, Hendrickson, Pitney, Voorhees. ' 8. For reversal—Adams, Yredenburgi-i, Yroom. 3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 A. 388, 68 N.J.L. 311, 1902 N.J. LEXIS 164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/suburban-land-improvement-co-v-mayor-of-vailsburgh-nj-1902.