Case ID: nj-eq_130/html/0203-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mary R. Boylan, complainant-respondent, v. Loy Corporation et al., defendants-appellants.
    [Argued May 28th, 1941.
    Decided September 19th, 1941.]
    
      Mr. Benjamin J. Darling and Mr. John H. Jotes, for the appellants.
    
      Messrs. Marcus & Katz and Mr. William H. Speer, for the respondent.
   Per Curiam.

The facts are set forth at length in the opinion of the Yice-Chancellor and need not be repeated here. We are of the opinion that, under the particular circumstances of this case, a right of way by necessity arose in favor of the complainant over the land of the defendant Loy Corporation. Although it can make no difference in the determination of this case, it is to be noted that the ease of Blumberg v. Weiss, 126 N. J. Eq. 616; 10 Atl. Rep. (2d) 743, cited in the opinion below, was reversed in this court, 129 N. J. Eq. 34; 17 Atl. Rep. (2d) 823.

The decree is affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Parker, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Porter, Colie, Dear, Wells, Raeeerty, Hague, Thompson, JJ. 14.

For reversal — None.