Case Name: Mungo J. Currie et al., complainants-respondents, v. Mayor and Aldermen of Jersey City et al., defendants-appellants
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1925-10-19
Citations: 98 N.J. Eq. 689
Docket Number: 
Parties: Mungo J. Currie et al., complainants-respondents, v. Mayor and Aldermen of Jersey City et al., defendants-appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Equity Reports
Volume: 98
Pages: 689–689

Head Matter:
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.]
Mr. Thomas J. Brogan, for the appellants.
Mr. Richard Boardman, for the respondents.

Opinion:
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.