Town of Kearny v. Mayor of Jersey City
THE TOWN OF KEARNY, IN ERROR v. THE MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OF JERSEY CITY, 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.
The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Swayze in the Supreme Court.
We reserve, however, any expression of view upon the question whether Jersey City ivas, within the meaning of the act (Pamph. L. 1897, p. 232), the owner of water works. To that question the Supreme Court gave a negative answer. We find it unnecessary to deal with the question.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Garrison, Trenoi-iard, Bergen, Vooriiees, Minturn, Bogert, Vredenburgh, Vroom, Gray, Dill, Congdon, JJ. 12.
For reversal — None.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
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.