Case Name: JOHN B. HOPEWELL ET AL., PROSECUTORS, v. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF FLEMINGTON
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1903-07-23
Citations: 69 N.J.L. 597
Docket Number: 
Parties: JOHN B. HOPEWELL ET AL., PROSECUTORS, v. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF FLEMINGTON.
Judges: Before Justices Garrison and Garretson.
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 69
Pages: 597–598

Head Matter:
JOHN B. HOPEWELL ET AL., PROSECUTORS, v. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF FLEMINGTON.
Argued February Term, 1903
Decided July 23, 1903.
Where the side lines and grades of a street were fixed and established by an ordinance passed in 1896, and the properties of several owners on said street were made to conform to the grade so fixed, and intersecting streets have also been improved and a sewer system constructed with reference to said lines and grades— Held, that after more than five years after the ordinance became effective, prosecutors were barred by laches from maintaining a • certiorari to set aside said ordinance.
On certiorari.
Before Justices Garrison and Garretson.
For the prosecutors, Willard C. Parker and H. Burdett Herr.
For the defendant, Chester Van Syckel and George E. Large.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
On the 6th of July, 1896, an ordinance was passed by the board of trustees fixing and establishing the side lines and grades for Main street, in the village of Flemington. By its terms the ordinance took effect July 20th, 1896. No other municipal action under this ordinance affecting the property of the prosecutor appears by the return to have been since taken.
It appears'from the'evidence that th'e properties of several owners fronting oh Main street have been made to conform to the grade fixed by this ordinance; intersecting streets have also been improved with reference to the lines' and grades fixed by the ordinance and a sewerage system has been constructed at a large expense with reference to these same grades.
On the 24th of August, 1901, more than five years after the ordinance became effective, the prosecutors, alleging' that their properties were injured by this ordinance, procured the allowance of the writ of certiorari and now ask that the ordinance he set aside for various reasons, all of which existed when the ordinance was passed.
Under the decisions of this court the prosecutors have been guilty of such laches as disentitle- them to the relief asked for.
The writ of certiorari will be dismissed,, with costs.