Trustees of Rutgers College v. Morgan
Supreme Court of New Jersey
On error to the Supreme Court. For opinion of Supreme Court, see 40 Vroom 460.
1Per curiam
Saving in one respect, the opinion of Mr. Justice Van Syckel, in the Supreme Court, states the grounds upon which the judgment of that court is affirmed. Only in regard to the decision that the mandamus should issue against the comptroller regardless of the conditional restriction imposed upon the state treasurer hv the proviso of the act of March 31st, 1890, do we differ from the conclusions of the learned justice. In our view, the comptroller should not be compelled by mandamus to do a nugatory act, and we think that it was within his sound discretion to withhold his warrant upon .the state…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Wilentz v. HendricksonNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1943
- TRUSTEES OF RUTGERS COLLEGE IN NJ v. RichmanNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1956
- Levine v. STATE, DEPT. OF INSTITUTIONS & AGENCIESSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1980
- Frank Briscoe Co. v. RUTGERS, STATE UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGE OF MEDICINE AND DENTISTRYNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1974
- Craig v. Mercy Hospital-Street MemorialMississippi Supreme Court · 1950
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.