Barnett v. Johnson
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Upon the filing of the complainant’s bill in the Court of Chancery, an injunction was granted ex parte. The defendant, having filed his answer, moved to dissolve. This motion was argued before Mercer Beasley, esquire, master, &c., to whom the matter was referred by the Chancellor, (Williamson) he having been of counsel with the defendant in relation to matters contained in the bill.
Read the full summary
Upon the filing of the complainant’s bill in the Court of Chancery, an injunction was granted ex parte. The defendant, having filed his answer, moved to dissolve. This motion was argued before Mercer Beasley, esquire, master, &c., to whom the matter was referred by the Chancellor, (Williamson) he having been of counsel with the defendant in relation to matters contained in the bill. Upon recommendation of Master Beasley, the Chancellor made an order dissolving the injunction. From this order an appeal was taken.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Vredenburgh, J.
The complainant in the Court of Chancery, who is also the appellant in this court, owns a house and lot in the city of Newark binding on the east upon Broad street, and on the south upon the Morris canal. Over this last the defendant, under a license from the canal company, proposes springing an arch, and erecting a building, *483several stories liigli, touching the house and shutting up the windows of the complainant.
An injunction is prayed.
The company was chartered in 1824. In 1828 and 1830 they located and constructed the north side of…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Gerstley v. Globe Wernicke Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1930
- Regency Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
- Lindel Realty Co. v. MillerNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1948
- Lindel Realty Company v. MillerNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1949
- Hulett v. Sea GirtNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1930
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.