Case ID: nj-eq_98/html/0689-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pee Cueiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mungo J. Currie et al., complainants-respondents, v. Mayor and Aldermen of Jersey City et al., defendants-appellants.
    [Argued June 2d, 1925.
    Decided October 19th, 1925.]
    On appeal from a decree advised by Vice-Chancellor Griffin, whose opinion is reported in 95 N. J. Eq. 412.
    
    
      Mr. Thomas J. Brogan, for the appellants.
    
      Mr. Richard Boardman, for the respondents.
   Pee Cueiam.

Of the five points specifically taken up and decided by the learned vice-chancellor, only two are urged on this appeal. They are, first, that the filing in the county clerk’s office of the Currie map (which he properly held to be an unofficial filing), plus the adoption of grades by the city, worked a complete dedication; second, that the deeds made by complainants (in which intent to dedicate was expressly disclaimed) were a confirmation of an original dedicatory intent.

We conclude that the decree should be affirmed, and for the reasons given in the opinion of Vice-Chancellor Griffin so far as they deal with the points now argued. As to other points considered by him, but not raised here, we, naturally, express no opinion.

For affirmance — The Chibe-Justice, Pabkbe, Kalisch, Black, Katzenbach, Campbell, Lloyd, White, Van Busker k, McGlennon, Kays, JJ. 11.

For reversal — Paekee, J. 1.