Attorney-General ex rel. City of Elizabeth v. Central Railroad
The Attorney-General, ex rel. the City of Elizabeth, and The City of Elizabeth v. The Central Railroad Company
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Pee Cueiam.
Our examination of this case leads us to the conclusion that the decree appealed from should be affirmed. We concur in the opinion of the learned vice-chancellor before whom the cause was heard in the court below, except so far as it intimates a dissent from the view expressed by the supreme court, in the case of Elizabeth v. Central Railroad Co., 53 N. J. Law (24 Vr.) 491, that under the riparian acts the grant of the state to the Central Railroad Company (which was the- subject-matter of the controversy in that case as well as in the present one) operated to terminate the existence of Elizabeth avenue over the lands included in the grant below high-water mark. As is pointed out by the learned vice-chancellor in his opinion, so far as the issues involved in the present information and bill are concerned, the determination of the supreme court, while unreversed, must be accepted as settling that question, and any expression of opinion upon it by this court in this proceeding would be merely obiter.
For affirmance—The Ci-iiee-Justice, Gaeeison, Fobt, Gaebetson, PIendbickson, Pitney, Swayze, Reed, Bogert, Yee-DENBUBGI-I, YBOOM, GkEEN, GbAY, DlLL-14.
For reversal—None.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.