Vincelli v. Central Railroad Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Vincelli v. Central Railroad Co.

125 A. 12, 100 N.J.L. 187, 1924 N.J. LEXIS 229

DecidedMay 19, 1924

StatusPublished

This text of 125 A. 12 (Vincelli v. Central Railroad Co.) 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

Vincelli v. Central Railroad Co., 125 A. 12, 100 N.J.L. 187, 1924 N.J. LEXIS 229 (N.J. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

The judgment under review should be affirmed substantially for the reasons stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. We deem it proper to- add, however, that the undisputed evidence in the case indicates, that the crossing in question was a private crossing- connecting two portions of a tract of land which had been separated by the right of way of the defendant railroad company, and that, while the Supreme Court correctly relied upon section 26 of the Eailroad act of 1903 (Comp. Stat., p. 4231), the opinion fails to quote a clause in that section which we deem particularly applicable to the case at bar, and which reads as follows:

“And also ivhere said railroad shall intersect any farm or land of any individual, to provide and keep in repair suitable and convenient wagon-ways over, under and across said railroad, and to construct and maintain suitable and proper cattle guards at all road crossings.”

This is a clause that seems to us particularly applicable to the physical situation exhibited by the evidence, and pursuant to which it was the duty of the railroad company to keep the particular crossing in repair. In all other respects the opinion of the Supreme Court is satisfactory and needs no further comment.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Trenci-iard, Parker, I^tnturn, Campbell, Lloyd, White, Gardner, Van .Buskirk,- Clark, JJ. 11.

For reversal — None.

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

Pee Cueiam.

The judgment under review should be affirmed substantially for the reasons stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. We deem it proper to- add, however, that the undisputed evidence in the case indicates, that the crossing in question was a private crossing- connecting two portions of a tract of land which had been separated by the right of way of the defendant railroad company, and that, while the Supreme Court correctly relied upon section 26 of the Eailroad act of 1903 (Comp. Stat., p. 4231), the opinion fails to quote a clause in that section which we deem particularly applicable to the case at bar, and which reads as follows:

“And also ivhere said railroad shall intersect any farm or land of any individual, to provide and keep in repair suitable and convenient wagon-ways over, under and across said railroad, and to construct and maintain suitable and proper cattle guards at all road crossings.”

This is a clause that seems to us particularly applicable to the physical situation exhibited by the evidence, and pursuant to which it was the duty of the railroad company to keep the particular crossing in repair. In all other respects the opinion of the Supreme Court is satisfactory and needs no further comment.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Trenci-iard, Parker, I^tnturn, Campbell, Lloyd, White, Gardner, Van .Buskirk,- Clark, JJ. 11.

For reversal — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 A. 12, 100 N.J.L. 187, 1924 N.J. LEXIS 229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vincelli-v-central-railroad-co-nj-1924.