Weidmann Silk Dyeing Co. v. Mayor of Newark

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Weidmann Silk Dyeing Co. v. Mayor of Newark

105 A. 195, 89 N.J. Eq. 579, 4 Stock. 579, 1918 N.J. LEXIS 340

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided November 18, 1918·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The decision of the meritorious question is controlled by the memorandum in No. 47. See ante p. 541. The only matter calling for further remark is the contention of the city that the compensation for the diversion of water should be ascertained by the chancellor instead of in condemnation proceedings by a jury. It is enough to say that the chancellor is not obliged to take that course. We need not consider whether he might have taken it if the complainant had consented.

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, White, Heppenheimer, Taylor, Gardner-12.

For reversal — None.

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

Per Curiam.

The decision of the meritorious question is controlled by the memorandum in No. 47. See ante p. 541. The only matter calling for further remark is the contention of the city that the compensation for the diversion of water should be ascertained by the chancellor instead of in condemnation proceedings by a jury. It is enough to say that the chancellor is not obliged to take that course. We need not consider whether he might have taken it if the complainant had consented.

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, White, Heppenheimer, Taylor, Gardner-12.

For reversal — None.

Weidmann Silk Dyeing Co. v. Mayor of Newark, 105 A. 195, 89 N.J. Eq. 579, 4 Stock. 579, 1918 N.J. LEXIS 340 (N.J. 1918).

Pincite

105 A. 195 (Weidmann Silk Dyeing Co. v. Mayor of Newark) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.