Case Name: CHRISTINA M. WILD, RESPONDENT, v. FLORENCE CAHILL, HIPPOLITE A. De RAISMES, EMMA ST. C. De RAISMES, APPELLANTS
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1921-02-28
Citations: 95 N.J.L. 557
Docket Number: 
Parties: CHRISTINA M. WILD, RESPONDENT, v. FLORENCE CAHILL, HIPPOLITE A. De RAISMES, EMMA ST. C. De RAISMES, APPELLANTS.
Judges: For affirmance — The Chancellor, Swayzb, TreNCHAed, PARKER, BERGEN, MlNTURN, KaLISOH, BLACK, KATZENBACH, White, HeppbNHEimbe, WilliaMS, Taylor, Gardker, AoKEesoN, JJ. 15.
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 95
Pages: 557–558

Head Matter:
CHRISTINA M. WILD, RESPONDENT, v. FLORENCE CAHILL, HIPPOLITE A. De RAISMES, EMMA ST. C. De RAISMES, APPELLANTS.
Submitted December 6, 1920
Decided February 28, 1921.
On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which court Chief Justice Gummere filed the following opinion:
"The purpose of this writ is to test the validity of certain proceedings had in the Circuit Court of this county looking to the confirmation of a sale under the Martin act, of a tract of land located on the Newark meadows.
“It is conceded that the proceedings in the Circuit are fatally defective, for failure to comply with the statutory requirement in describing the premises. The only mooted question is whether the prosecutrix has a standing to challenge the legality of those proceedings. An examination of the papers, and the testimony in the case, leads me to the conclusion that she has. The taxing authorities of Newark assessed this property for taxation as the property of one William Ball. That, I think, justifies a presumption of ownership, either in him, or, in case of his death, in his heirs-at-law. The proof shows that ho is dead; that one of his lineal descendants conveyed all his right, title and interest in the property to prosecutrix. There is nothing to show that either William Ball, or any of lus. lineal descendants down to the grantor of the present prosecutrix, ever made a will, and, in the absence of such proof, the presumption of law is that the title to the land descended to heirs. The prosecu-trix, being the grantee of one of the lineal descendants, and, therefore, one of the heirs of William Ball, I think she has a standing to prosecute this writ as the presumptive owner of an undivided interest in the land. That being so., I must find that the proceedings under review are defective, and direct that an order be entered setting them aside, with costs, to the prosecutrix.”
For the appellants, William P. Hurley.
For the respondent, James B. Nugeni.

Opinion:
PER CüRTAM.
The judgment nnder review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Guarniere in the Supreme Court.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Swayzb, TreNCHAed, PARKER, BERGEN, MlNTURN, KaLISOH, BLACK, KATZENBACH, White, HeppbNHEimbe, WilliaMS, Taylor, Gardker, AoKEesoN, JJ. 15.
For reversal — None.