Legal Opinion
Chidester v. City of Newark
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided January 17, 1945No. 5568PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEANEY, District Judge.
This is an action in ejectment.
Plaintiffs are the heirs of one James Searing, who made three certain deeds to the Morris Canal and Banking Company dated January 11, 1830, March 28, 1833 and March 1, 1856. They claim an undivided interest in the lands described in said deeds on the theory that title to such lands has reverted to them by virtue of the abandonment of the use of the lands for canal purposes.
The canal company was chartered by act of the legislature in 1824. P.L.1824, p. 158, N.J.S.A. 13:12-1, entitled “An Act to incorporate a company to form an artificial…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Samuel Goldwyn, Inc. v. United Artists CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1940
- Zephyr American Corporation v. Bates Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1942
- Messer v. OestreichWisconsin Supreme Court · 1881
- Holley's v. CurryWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1905
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Chidester v. City of NewarkCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1947
- Baker v. DaleDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri · 1954
- United States v. 62.57 Acres of Land in Yuma County, Arizona, Fort Yuma Land and Investment, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1971
- Wilomay Holding Co. v. McCoyNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1958