Mayor of Woodridge v. Mayor of Carlstadt
New Jersey Court of Chancery
On the several demurrers of the defendants. The object of the bill is to enforce, by specific performance, a contract entered into by the four municipalities, complainants and defendants, and, among other things, for the conveyance of certain lands, and, incidentally, to have set aside a conveyance by, the township of Bergen to the defendant Zimmerman for a portion of those lands.
Read the full summary
On the several demurrers of the defendants. The object of the bill is to enforce, by specific performance, a contract entered into by the four municipalities, complainants and defendants, and, among other things, for the conveyance of certain lands, and, incidentally, to have set aside a conveyance by, the township of Bergen to the defendant Zimmerman for a portion of those lands. The facts set up in the bill and admitted by the demurrers are as follows: The territory of each of the three boroughs was originally a part of the territory of the township of Bergen in the county of Bergen. The…
1Opinion of the Court
Pitney, V. C.
The principal reliance of defendants in support of the demurrers at the argument was that, under the construction put upon the act of April 16th, 1896, by the supreme court, in the case of Orvil v. Woodcliff, 32 Vr. 107, the contract of July 27th, 1897, was not binding on the township of Bergen without a vote of the people in its confirmation. But this ruling was, after the argument herein, reversed by the court of errors and appeals, as reported in SB Vr. 292, and it was held that the vote of the township was not necessary, and that the action of the . township committee bound…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Inhabitants of Orvil v. Mayor of WoodcliffSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1897