Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

MUNGO J. CURRIE et al., complainants-respondents, v. MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OFJERSEY CITY et al., defendants-appellants.

PER CURIAM.

Of the five points specifically taken up and decided by the learned vice-chancellor, only two are urged on this appeal. They are, first, that the filing in the county clerk's office of the Currie map (which he properly held to be an unofficial filing), plus the adoption of grades by the city, worked a complete dedication; second, that the deeds made by complainants (in which intent to dedicate was expressly disclaimed) were a confirmation of an original dedicatory intent.

We conclude that the decree should be affirmed, and for the reasons given in the opinion of Vice-Chancellor Griffin so far as they deal with the points now argued. As to other points considered by him, but not raised here, we, naturally, express no opinion.

For affirmance — THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, PARKER, KALISCH, BLACK, KATZENBACH, CAMPBELL, LLOYD, WHITE, VAN BUSKIRK, McGLENNON, KAYS, JJ. 11.

For reversal — PARKER, J. 1.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

CURRIE v. JERSEY CITY
(Oct 19, 1925)