Mayor of Jersey City v. Speer
THE MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OF JERSEY CITY, IN ERROR v. WILLIAM H. SPEER, CIRCUIT JUDGE, AND LEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY, 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 Cueiam.
We agree with the Supreme Court in its construction of the supplement of 1891 to the so-called Martin act (Pamph. L. 1886, p. 149; Gen. Stat., p. 3370; Pamph. L. 1891, p. 393; Gen. Stat., p. 3384, pl. 451), as expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Garrison in that court. We find it unnecessary to pass upon the constitutional question discussed in that opinion.
The judgment under review should be affirmed, with costs.
For affirmance — Ti-ie Chancellor, Chiee Justice; Swayze, Trenchaed, Bergen, Minturn, Bogbrt, Vredenburgh, Vroom, Gray, Congdon, JJ. 11.
For reversal — None.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 0 cases
No case in this database cites this case.