Case Name: JAMES VANDER KLOK, COMPLAINANT, v. BOROUGH OF HAWTHORNE, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, RESPONDENT
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1938-08-17
Citations: 120 N.J.L. 534
Docket Number: 
Parties: JAMES VANDER KLOK, COMPLAINANT, v. BOROUGH OF HAWTHORNE, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, RESPONDENT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 120
Pages: 534–534

Head Matter:
JAMES VANDER KLOK, COMPLAINANT, v. BOROUGH OF HAWTHORNE, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, RESPONDENT.
Submitted May 3, 1938 —
Decided August 17, 1938.
Before Justices Trenchard, Parker and Perskie.
For the complainant, Max P. Arlt (William V. Rosenkrans, of counsel).
For the respondent, Francis Caminetti.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This is complainant's rule to show cause why an alternative writ of mandamus should not issue, directing respondent to apply for commissioners to fix compensation and damages for land taken for the widening of Rock road between Goffle road and Lincoln avenue, in the borough of Hawthorne, in accordance with the provisions of an ordinance of the borough.
The depositions laid before us show that the facts are in substantial dispute and that the legal right to a mandamus is not clear. In such ease an alternative writ only will be awarded, and accordingly the rule to show cause in this ease will be made absolute. Hugg v. Camden, 39 N. J. L. 620; Schnitzler v. New York Transportation Co., 76 Id. 171.