State v. Lehigh Valley Railroad

We conclude that the judgment brought up should be affirmed, substantially for the reasons given in the opinion of Mr. Justice Swayze in the Supreme Court.

We are not .called upon to decide as between the present plaintiff in error and its lessor, the Morris-Canal Company, which one is bound under the contractual relations existing between them, to bear the expense of maintaining bridges across the canal. In the case of Ryerson v. Morris Canal Co., 71 N. J. L. 381, relied oh by counsel and discussed in the opinion below, the question was whether by the act of leasing-under express legislative…