United New Jersey Railroad v. McCulley

New Jersey Court of Chancery

United New Jersey Railroad v. McCulley

59 A. 229, 68 N.J. Eq. 442, 2 Robb. 442, 1904 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 16

DecidedNovember 10, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 59 A. 229 (United New Jersey Railroad v. McCulley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United New Jersey Railroad v. McCulley, 59 A. 229, 68 N.J. Eq. 442, 2 Robb. 442, 1904 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 16 (N.J. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

Bergen, V. C.

This case is similar to that considered and determined in a cause between the same complainants and Francis Lewis and others,.in which I have just filed my conclusions (supra, p. 437). As the reasons given for the result in that cause are, in the main, applicable to this case, I refer to and adopt them as a justification for the conclusion reached here. The only difference in the cases is that in the Lewis Case the lands alleged to be injured were improved, having on them a dwelling-house, while here the lot was without any buildings.

It is contended, on behalf of the complainants, that the right) to damages for changing the grade of a street is limited, as to the city of Elizabeth, to lots having buildings on them, and that no legal injury is sustained, whatever may be the change of grade, if the lot be vacant. It is not necessary to consider this [443]*443proposition, for if the complainants are right they have a perfect defence at law for any lawful act done as the agent of the city. That under the contract by virtue of which the work was done they were the employes of the city, was settled in Clark v. Elizabeth, 61 N. J. Law (32 Vr.) 577, 585.

The demurrer should be sustained.

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

Bergen, V. C.

This case is similar to that considered and determined in a cause between the same complainants and Francis Lewis and others,.in which I have just filed my conclusions (supra, p. 437). As the reasons given for the result in that cause are, in the main, applicable to this case, I refer to and adopt them as a justification for the conclusion reached here. The only difference in the cases is that in the Lewis Case the lands alleged to be injured were improved, having on them a dwelling-house, while here the lot was without any buildings.

It is contended, on behalf of the complainants, that the right) to damages for changing the grade of a street is limited, as to the city of Elizabeth, to lots having buildings on them, and that no legal injury is sustained, whatever may be the change of grade, if the lot be vacant. It is not necessary to consider this [443]*443proposition, for if the complainants are right they have a perfect defence at law for any lawful act done as the agent of the city. That under the contract by virtue of which the work was done they were the employes of the city, was settled in Clark v. Elizabeth, 61 N. J. Law (32 Vr.) 577, 585.

The demurrer should be sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A. 229, 68 N.J. Eq. 442, 2 Robb. 442, 1904 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 16, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-new-jersey-railroad-v-mcculley-njch-1904.