State v. Mayor of Rutherford
THE STATE, AARON RAYMOND, IN ERROR v. THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD, IN ERROR
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.
Per Curiam.
In affirming the judgment of the Supreme Court in this case, this court does not decide whether the expense of searching the title of the land within the avenue is assessable as *341 part of the cost of “ grading.” The reasons assigned do not cover such an objection, and the unquestionable expenses of the grading were sufficient to make up the total sum assessed.
For affirmance—The Chancellor, Dixon, Garrison, Reed, Van Syokel, Bogert, Brown, Phelps, Smith. 9.
For reversal—None.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
("The principle of frontage assessment is not necessarily wrong. If that mode properly distributes the benefits among the owners of property benefited, there can be no objection to its use.")
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.