Coster v. Tide Water Co.
New Jersey Court of Chancery
The complainant filed his bill in this cause to restrain Atterbury, Merrill, and McIntosh, the commissioners appointed under the charter of The Tide Wafer Company, the other defendant, from making a contract with that company, to dyke and drain the lands of the complainants and others, against their will. A temporary injunction was granted. No answer was filed, and no depositions were taken. The cause is heard upon a motion to dissolve the injunction.
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The complainant, as devisee of John G. Coster, claims an undivided interest in fee, in thirty-nine hundred acres of marsh or meadow land, bounded in part by the Passaic river, Newark bay, the Hackensack river, and Saw-mill creek, a tide water tributary of the Hackensack, and in part, on the west side, by lands of Francis S. Lathrop. and others.
Peter C. Sclienck, and nine others of the defendants, by an act, claimed by them to be passed on the fourth day of *56April, 1866, according to the constitution, were incorporated by the name of “ The Tide Water Company.” The preamble to…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Wilkinson v. LelandSupreme Court of the United States · 1829
- Beekman v. Saratoga & Schenectady Rail RoadNew York Court of Chancery · 1831
- Varick v. Smith & The Attorney GeneralNew York Court of Chancery · 1835
- In re JohnNew York Supreme Court · 1839
- Harris v. ThompsonNew York Supreme Court · 1850
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- St. John the Baptist, C., Church v. GengorNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1935
- City of Passaic v. StateNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1954
- In Re: Western Sales Trading Company v. GenPro International, Inc. (Guam), and FPD Food International Inc. a.k.a. 7D Food International, Inc., Real Party in Interest-AppelleeSupreme Court of Guam · 2021
- State v. EvansWashington Supreme Court · 1998