Case Name: A. J. ELLIS, INCORPORATED, APPELLANT, v. TOWN OF GUTTENBERG ET AL., RESPONDENTS
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1915-03-01
Citations: 87 N.J.L. 313
Docket Number: 
Parties: A. J. ELLIS, INCORPORATED, APPELLANT, v. TOWN OF GUTTENBERG ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 87
Pages: 313–314

Head Matter:
A. J. ELLIS, INCORPORATED, APPELLANT, v. TOWN OF GUTTENBERG ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
Submitted December 7, 1914—
Decided March 1, 1915.
On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which court Mr. Justice Swayze delivered the following memorandum:
“I think the prosecutor has failed to make out a ease. The contract is authorized by section 30 of the Railroad act, and although the procedure under the decision in Clark v. Elizabeth, 61 N. J. L. 565, must he regulated by other statutes relating to the town, the act of 1895 (Comp. Stat., p. 3549), suffices to convey authority, so far as the ordinance vacates, straightens, alters or widens any street already laid out. This seems to cover Perry street. So far as concerns jSTorth, South and A¥ater streets, they were merely dedicated streets and never accepted by the municipality. ISTo vacation of the public easement seems therefore to have been necessary, and the proceeding to vacate amounted, as counsel for the railroad companies argued, only to a renunciation of any future right to accept dedication. It is settled that compensation for the vacation of a street by the public authorities is nol required unless by sjjecial provision of the charter or other acts relating to the matter. No such act is pointed out; and even if there had been a vacation in the proper sense of the word, no compensation was required.
“I see no objection to the offer of the railroad company to .pay the expenses of the improvement. It comes entirely within the rule established by the Court of Errors and Appeals in Black v. Atlantic County, 81 N. J. L. 444.
“The writ must therefore be dismissed, with costs.”
For the appellant, Warren Dixon.
For the respondents, Vredenburgh, Wall & Carey

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The judgment under review herein should be affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice .Swayze in the Supreme Court.
For affirmance—The Chancellor, Ciiiee Justice, Trenoi-iard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kaliscii, Black, Vre-DENBURGJI, WHITE, JJ. 10.
For reversal—None.