Meeker v. City of East Orange
Supreme Court of New Jersey
On error to the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported in 47 Vroom 435.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
PitNey, CHANCELLOR.
Plaintiff brought two actions in one of the District Courts of the city of Newark to recover damages for the diversion by the defendant of percolating underground water. In each case the District Court rendered judgment in favor of the defendant, and upon appeal to the Supreme Court the judgments were affirmed. By writs of error the records are brought here for review.
The cases were submitted to the trial court upon agreed statements of fact. In one case it is stipulated that plaintiff owns and occupies a farm of about one hundred…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Katz v. WalkinshawCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Forbell v. . City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1900
- Roath v. DriscollSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1850
- Wilson v. City of New BedfordMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
- City of Emporia v. SodenSupreme Court of Kansas · 1881
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by41 opinions
- In Re Water Use Permit ApplicationsHawaii Supreme Court · 2000
- Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. WilkesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1936
- Patrick v. SmithWashington Supreme Court · 1913
- Higday v. NickolausMissouri Court of Appeals · 1971
- Horne v. Utah Oil Refining Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1921
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.