State v. Rutherford
Supreme Court of New Jersey
On certiorari. On the 18th day of December surveyors were duly appointed by the Court of Common Pleas of the county of Cape May for the alteration of a public road in said county, the said alteration involving the vacation of a part of an old road and the laying out and.construction of a new one. The return of .the surveyors was filed January 19th, 1889. No «caveat was filed. The return of-the surveyors was recorded, and the work thereby authorized was begun and completed.
Read the full summary
On certiorari. On the 18th day of December surveyors were duly appointed by the Court of Common Pleas of the county of Cape May for the alteration of a public road in said county, the said alteration involving the vacation of a part of an old road and the laying out and.construction of a new one. The return of .the surveyors was filed January 19th, 1889. No «caveat was filed. The return of-the surveyors was recorded, and the work thereby authorized was begun and completed. On June 11th, 1889, the prosecutor obtained a writ of certiorari removing the above proceedings into this court,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Garrison, J.
The first, second and third reasons are-shown, by the testimony taken, to be without foundation in fact. Furthermore, in so far as they are addressed to the proceedings preliminary to the public improvement in question,, they come too late. The prosecutor stood by until the work was completed. State v. Clark, 9 Vroom 102; Bowne v. Logan, 14 Id. 421.
*503If the object of this vgfit is to relieve the prosecutor of a burden imposed upon him by an assessment not involving the disturbance of the road as laid and constructed, the present case is…
2Cited by4 opinions
- City of Bartlesville v. HolmSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1914
- Ballentine v. City of ColumbiaSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1924
- Van Wagoner v. Mayor of PatersonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1902
- Devine v. OlneySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1902