State v. Mayor of Newark
Supreme Court of New Jersey
On certiorari. By agreement of counsel, the following (among other) facts appear: On the 16th day of April, A. D. 1886, a communication was presented to the mayor and common council of the city of Newark, at a meeting of the council held on that day, of which the following is a copy : “ To the Honorable the Mayor and Common Cowncil of the City of Newa/rh, N. J. : “ Gentlemen — The Citizens’ Telephone Company, of Newark, N. J., respectfully petition your honorable body to…
Read the full summary
On certiorari. By agreement of counsel, the following (among other) facts appear: On the 16th day of April, A. D. 1886, a communication was presented to the mayor and common council of the city of Newark, at a meeting of the council held on that day, of which the following is a copy : “ To the Honorable the Mayor and Common Cowncil of the City of Newa/rh, N. J. : “ Gentlemen — The Citizens’ Telephone Company, of Newark, N. J., respectfully petition your honorable body to grant to them the right to erect and maintain their poles and wires on the various streets, avenues and alleys of the city…
1Opinion of the Court
*346The opinion of the court was delivered by
Magie, J.
Defendants’ counsel first contended that prosecutors had no right to question the validity of the resolution brought before us by this certiorari. But the precise question thus raised was decided by this court in Peoples’ Gaslight Co. v. Jersey City, 17 Vroom 297. Under the authority of that case it is plain that prosecutors may, by such a writ, challenge the authority of the city of Newark to adopt the resolution in question.
It becomes necessary, therefore, to determine whether the city of Newark had power to do what by this resolution it…
2Cited by3 opinions
- South McAlester-Eufaula Telephone Co. v. State Ex Rel. Baker-Reidt Mercantile Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1910
- Kirzenbaum v. PaulusNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1959
- Citizens' Electric Light & Power Co. v. SandsMichigan Supreme Court · 1893