McKinley v. Chosen Freeholders
New Jersey Court of Chancery
On filing tbe bill an order was granted enjoining tbe defendants from appropriating any public money to pay for tbe bridge in controversy, and requiring tbem to show cause why an injunction should not issue pursuant to the prayer of the bill. This order was heard on bill and answer.
1Opinion of the Court
The Vice-Chancellor.
Three tax-payers of Union county seek, by this court; to prevent the board of chosen freeholders of that couüty from making what they allege will be an illegal and fraudulent appropriation of public ^noneys. The power of this court to interfere, by injunction, to prevent a public body or functionary from making a fraudulent or unlawful appropriation of moneys raised by taxation, is undoubted. Kerr on Inj. 573; High on Inj., §§ 373, 793.
The bill charges that the chosen freeholders have, without authority of law, constructed an expensive stone trench, sluice or drain under…
2Cases cited44 opinions
- People v. Rensselaer & Saratoga Rail RoadNew York Supreme Court · 1836
- Inhabitants of Woburn v. HenshawMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
- Houfe v. Town of FultonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1871
- Manderschid v. City of DubuqueSupreme Court of Iowa · 1870
- Dively v. City of Cedar FallsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1869
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Haines v. Burlington County Bridge CommissionNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1949
- Soper v. ConlyNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1929