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

DecidedAugust 17, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.2d 35 (Vander Klok v. Borough of Hawthorne) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.2d 35, 120 N.J.L. 534, 1938 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vander-klok-v-borough-of-hawthorne-nj-1938.