Attorney-General v. Delaware & Bound Brook Railroad
New Jersey Court of Chancery
Motion for injunction. On bill and answer and order to show cause why injunction should not issue.
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The information complains that the defendants are constructing a bridge across the Delaware river, and so have been and are guilty of purpresture, and that the structure is a public nuisance. It prays that they may be restrained from erecting or completing it, and from placing or raising its abutments, piers or supports, which, it alleges, are to be placed in the waters of the river, and from using and maintaining the structure, and taking tolls or fares for passing or repassing on or over it; and that it may be declared to be a purpresture and public nuisance, and that the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Mississippi & Missouri Railroad v. WardSupreme Court of the United States · 1863
- Conway v. Taylor'sSupreme Court of the United States · 1862
- Bridge Proprietors v. Hoboken Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1864
- The People v. . VanderbiltNew York Court of Appeals · 1863
- RUNDLE v. Delaware and Raritan Canal CompanySupreme Court of the United States · 1853
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Schultz v. WilsonNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1957
- Pedrick v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
- Township of Springfield v. BensleyNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1952
- Canda Realty Co. v. CarteretNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1945
- State v. Mundet Cork Corp.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1939
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.