Vander Klok v. Borough of Hawthorne

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Vander Klok v. Borough of Hawthorne

1 A.2d 35, 120 N.J.L. 534, 1938 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 148

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided August 17, 1938·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is complainant’s rule to show cause why an alternative writ of mandamus should not issue, directing respondent to apply for commissioners to fix compensation and damages for land taken for the widening of Rock road between Goffle road and Lincoln avenue, in the borough of Hawthorne, in accordance with the provisions of an ordinance of the borough.

The depositions laid before us show that the facts are in substantial dispute and that the legal right to a mandamus is not clear. In such ease an alternative writ only will be awarded, and accordingly the rule to show cause in this ease will be made absolute. Hugg v. Camden, 39 N. J. L. 620; Schnitzler v. New York Transportation Co., 76 Id. 171.

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

Per Curiam.

This is complainant’s rule to show cause why an alternative writ of mandamus should not issue, directing respondent to apply for commissioners to fix compensation and damages for land taken for the widening of Rock road between Goffle road and Lincoln avenue, in the borough of Hawthorne, in accordance with the provisions of an ordinance of the borough.

The depositions laid before us show that the facts are in substantial dispute and that the legal right to a mandamus is not clear. In such ease an alternative writ only will be awarded, and accordingly the rule to show cause in this ease will be made absolute. Hugg v. Camden, 39 N. J. L. 620; Schnitzler v. New York Transportation Co., 76 Id. 171.

Vander Klok v. Borough of Hawthorne, 1 A.2d 35, 120 N.J.L. 534, 1938 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 148 (N.J. 1938).

Pincite

1 A.2d 35 (Vander Klok v. Borough of Hawthorne) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.