Case Name: PIETRO ROSELLE, CRESCENT J. ROSELLE, ARTHUR ROSELLE AND LOUIS ROSELLE, A PARTNERSHIP DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE TRADE NAME OF PETER ROSELLE & SONS, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. THE TOWNSHIP OF MAPLEWOOD AND TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MAPLEWOOD, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1953-02-02
Citations: 11 N.J. 373
Docket Number: 
Parties: PIETRO ROSELLE, CRESCENT J. ROSELLE, ARTHUR ROSELLE AND LOUIS ROSELLE, A PARTNERSHIP DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE TRADE NAME OF PETER ROSELLE & SONS, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. THE TOWNSHIP OF MAPLEWOOD AND TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MAPLEWOOD, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
Judges: For dismissal—Chief Justice Vanderbilt, and Justices Usher, Oliphant, Wacheneeld, Burling, Jacobs and Brennan—7.
Reporter: New Jersey Reports
Volume: 11
Pages: 373–374

Head Matter:
PIETRO ROSELLE, CRESCENT J. ROSELLE, ARTHUR ROSELLE AND LOUIS ROSELLE, A PARTNERSHIP DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE TRADE NAME OF PETER ROSELLE & SONS, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. THE TOWNSHIP OF MAPLEWOOD AND TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MAPLEWOOD, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
Argued February 2, 1953
Decided February 2, 1953.
Mr. Emanuel P. Scheclc argued the cause for the appellants (Messrs. Osborne, Cornish <& Scheclc, attorneys).
Mr. Samuel A. Lamer appeared for the respondents (Messrs. Budd & Lamer, attorneys).

Opinion:
Vanderbilt, C. J.
(orally). The court is of the opinion that the issues raised are moot, both as to 1952 and 1953.
So that the parties may be under no misapprehension wo would observe, on the merits, that the question raised in ' reference to the lease given to the plaintiff by the Town of Kearny seems to us to be without substance.
The appeal accordingly is dimissed.
For dismissal—Chief Justice Vanderbilt, and Justices Usher, Oliphant, Wacheneeld, Burling, Jacobs and Brennan—7.
Opposed—None.