Case ID: njl_12/html/0420-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The State against The Morris Canal and Banking Company.
    It is not necessary to give notice of a motion for a certiorari to bring up the ^'proceedings of commissioners appointed.to value the lands taken by a corporation for the use of a canal, but the court may, in their discretion, either award the certiorari in the first instance, or grant a rule to shew cause.
    
      Saxton,
    
    on behalf of himself and other land holders interested, moved for a certiorari to bring up before this court the proceedings and report of the commissioners appointed under the charter of the Morris Canal and Banking Company, to estimate and appraise the value of the lands and damages to the proprietors and parties interested in the premises required by the company for the use of their canal.
    
      Hornblower objected that due notice of the motion had> not been given; that the president and cashier both lived in New Jersey, and no notice had been served on them.
    
      Saxton said that no notice was necessary; that having lately been called upon by E. P. Bell, one of the directors, he had given him notice of the motion, not under an impression that notice was necessary, but as a mere act of courtesy, that the company might have an opportunity of opposing it if they thought proper, and it appeared the notice had produced this effect.
    
      The court desired the counsel to look into the question of notice and stir the case again the next morning.
    
      Saxton said that upon examination he was satisfied that notice was not necessary at common law; that in England notice was required only in two particular cases; in the one •case by a rule made by the judges of 3L B. directing three days’ notice to be given to the other side of an application to a judge at chambers for a certiorari to remove an indictment out of London or Middlesex, 5 Viner, 351; Let. H. pl. 7; Raym. 74; in the other, by the stat. 12 Geo. 2, C. 18, S. 5, directing six days’ notice, in writing, to be given to the parties as well as a recognizance to be entered into, previous to the granting of certioraris to remove any conviction, judgment, order, or other proceeding .before any justice or justices of the peace, Court of General or Quarter Sessions of the Peace; 4 Viner, 353; 1 Bac. 367; Let D.; 5 Term Rep. 279; that this rule had not been adopted or notice required by our statute; Rev. Laws, 406, 407, &c. That in the case of The State v. The Corporation of New Brunswick, in this court, notice was held not to be necessary, Coxe R. 393.
    
      
      *1. H. Williamson, for the company,
    said that there must be a rule nisi in the first instance for a certiorari against commissioners of sewers, and cited 18 Ting. C. L. Rep. 278.
   Per Curiam.

A notice is not necessary. We are of opinion, however, that the court may, in their discretion, grant a certiorari in the first instance, upon motion, ór if from the peculiar circumstances of the case, they should consider it necessary, direct a rule to shew cause. This is a novel case, of great importance, many questions may arise as to the most correct course of proceeding, the court therefore think it proper to direct a rule to shew cause.