Texas Eastern Transmission Corp. v. Wildlife Preserves, Inc.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Texas Eastern Transmission Corp. v. Wildlife Preserves, Inc.

230 A.2d 505, 49 N.J. 403, 1967 N.J. LEXIS 243

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedJune 14, 1967

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 230 A.2d 505 (Texas Eastern Transmission Corp. v. Wildlife Preserves, Inc.) 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

Texas Eastern Transmission Corp. v. Wildlife Preserves, Inc., 230 A.2d 505, 49 N.J. 403, 1967 N.J. LEXIS 243 (N.J. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff sought to acquire by condemnation a right of way across property of defendant Wildlife Preserves, Inc. Defendant’s property is devoted to the conservation and preservation of wildlife. In answer to the complaint, defendant alleged that the land was not subject to condemnation because it was devoted to a prior public use. Defendant claimed also that the plaintiff’s selection of the particular right of way was arbitrary and capricious because there was available on defendant’s land an adequate and serviceable alternate route, acceptance and use of which would avoid the devastating and irreparable damage the preserve would suffer if the demanded route was approved by the court’s judgment. On plaintiff’s motion, the trial court struck defendant’s answer as insufficient in law and appointed commissioners to fix the value of the right of way to be taken. 89 N. J. Super. 1 (Law Div. 1965). The Appellate Division affirmed on the trial court’s opinion. 90 N. J. Super. 385 (App. Div. 1966). This Court granted certification, 47 N. J. 91 (1966). Thereafter we approved so much of the lower courts’ view as held the doctrine of prior public use inapplicable, but we reversed the summary judgment and remanded the matter for a plenary trial on defendant’s claim that the route selected by plaintiff was arbitrary. 48 N. J. 261 (1966).

Subsequently a plenary trial of that issue was had. The disputing parties produced their respective lay and expert witnesses on the subject of the reasonableness of plaintiff’s choice of route over defendant’s land. After hearing all of the proof, the trial court concluded that plaintiff’s action *405 was not arbitrary or capricious, and that the right of way sought by plaintiff represented a reasonable exercise of judgment. Our examination of the record satisfies us that the evidence was ample to sustain the trial court’s finding. Accordingly the judgment is affirmed.

For affirmance—Chief Justice Weintraub and Justices Jacobs, Prancis, Proctor, Hall, Sohettino and Haneman—7.

For reversal—None.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff sought to acquire by condemnation a right of way across property of defendant Wildlife Preserves, Inc. Defendant’s property is devoted to the conservation and preservation of wildlife. In answer to the complaint, defendant alleged that the land was not subject to condemnation because it was devoted to a prior public use. Defendant claimed also that the plaintiff’s selection of the particular right of way was arbitrary and capricious because there was available on defendant’s land an adequate and serviceable alternate route, acceptance and use of which would avoid the devastating and irreparable damage the preserve would suffer if the demanded route was approved by the court’s judgment. On plaintiff’s motion, the trial court struck defendant’s answer as insufficient in law and appointed commissioners to fix the value of the right of way to be taken. 89 N. J. Super. 1 (Law Div. 1965). The Appellate Division affirmed on the trial court’s opinion. 90 N. J. Super. 385 (App. Div. 1966). This Court granted certification, 47 N. J. 91 (1966). Thereafter we approved so much of the lower courts’ view as held the doctrine of prior public use inapplicable, but we reversed the summary judgment and remanded the matter for a plenary trial on defendant’s claim that the route selected by plaintiff was arbitrary. 48 N. J. 261 (1966).

Subsequently a plenary trial of that issue was had. The disputing parties produced their respective lay and expert witnesses on the subject of the reasonableness of plaintiff’s choice of route over defendant’s land. After hearing all of the proof, the trial court concluded that plaintiff’s action *405 was not arbitrary or capricious, and that the right of way sought by plaintiff represented a reasonable exercise of judgment. Our examination of the record satisfies us that the evidence was ample to sustain the trial court’s finding. Accordingly the judgment is affirmed.

For affirmance—Chief Justice Weintraub and Justices Jacobs, Prancis, Proctor, Hall, Sohettino and Haneman—7.

For reversal—None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

230 A.2d 505, 49 N.J. 403, 1967 N.J. LEXIS 243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/texas-eastern-transmission-corp-v-wildlife-preserves-inc-nj-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack