Case Name: Matter of Highway
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1823-05
Citations: 7 N.J.L. 37
Docket Number: 
Parties: *Matter of Highway.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 7
Pages: 44–45

Head Matter:
*Matter of Highway.
The petition for the appointment of surveyors to lay out a road, ought not to designate two particular routes, on one or the other of which it is desired that the road should be laid out, but ought to designate only the points or places from and to which the road is proposed to be laid out.
A petition had been presented to the Supreme Court' for the appointment of surveyors to lay out a road in the counties of Morris-and Somerset, on either one of two routes, set out and described in the petition. Surveyors had been appointed, who laid out a road, and made their return to this court". Against the recording this return, a caveat was entered, and—
Vroom, now moved to set aside the proceedings, because the application, as contained in the petition, was too indefi nite; it was made in the alternative to lay out a road either in one place or another place, stating two distinct routes. This, he contended, could not be done. See Rev. Laws, 615, see. 2.
Hartwell $ Southard, contra,
said there was no reason why two different routes might not be put in the same application. That the same petitioners might apply for different roads at the same time, and therefore, with the same propriety, might the same petition point out as many different routes as the petitioners might think eligible for a road. Besides, this objection, if it *availed anything, ought to have been made upon tho application to lay out the road, and was too late now.

Opinion:
Kiekpateick, O. J.
There is an error in the petition. The petitioners are not to designate to the surveyors the route they are to run. They are to designate only certain points, otherwise they may, by their description, limit tho surveyors to a particular line, and prevent any variation from it.
Bossell, J.,
thought that the description of the route was a necessary part of the application.
Foed, J.
Though an application may be made for two or three distinct roads in the same application, there is nothing in the statute which authorizes the application for one road, to be laid out in one or another of two designated routes.
Proceedings set aside.