Case ID: njl_94/html/0558-01.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

CITY OF NEW BRUNSWICK, APPELLANT, v. BOARD OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
    Argued March 4, 1920
    Decided June 14, 1920.
    On appeal from tlie Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported in 94 N. ,T. L. 46. '
    For the appellant, Thomas II. Eagerty and Robert II. McCarter. • \
    
    For the respondents, Thomas F. McGran, attorney-general, and Fragile Bergen.
    
   Pee Cueiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Bergen in the Supreme Court.

For affirmance—The Chief Justice, Swayze, Parker, Mintuen, Kalisoi-i, Black, White, Heppeni-ieimer, Williams, Tayloe, Gardner, Aokerson, 'JJ. ■ 12.

For revei'sal—None.