Legal Opinion

Chidester v. City of Newark

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided February 6, 1941No. 7449PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

BIGGS, Circuit Judge.

The appellants contend that they are entitled to reversionary rights in certain real estate in Newark, New Jersey. An ancestor of the appellants, James Searing, conveyed these lands to the Morris Canal and Banking Company by three deeds, the earliest of which was dated January 11, 1830. They argue that because the ha-bendum clause of this deed gave the lands to the Canal Company1 so long as they should be used for the purposes of the Canal Company and because the canal has been abandoned and conveyed to the State of New Jersey for the benefit of the City of Newark 2 the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Graf v. City of NewarkSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1940

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Harrison Central Corp. v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1944

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API