Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Borough of Chatham v. Board of Conservation and Development

Decided: October 20, 1930.

BOROUGH OF CHATHAM ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
BOARD OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT AND CITY OF EAST ORANGE, RESPONDENTS



On appeal from the Supreme Court, whose per curiam is printed in 7 N.J. Mis. R. 958.

For the appellants, Riker & Riker, Henry G. Pilch, and Robert E. Burke.

For the respondents, W. A. Stevens, attorney-general, and Walter C. Ellis.

Campbell

The opinion of the court was delivered by

CAMPBELL, J. The city of East Orange filed its application with the board of conservation and development to obtain leave to condemn lands in the borough of Florham Park, Morris county, for the purpose of increasing its water supply, which it hoped to secure from underground waters, by means of driven wells.

After several hearings and the taking of a considerable amount of testimony the leave prayed for by the city of East Orange was granted by the board upon condition that the amount of water taken from such proposed new source of supply should not exceed two million gallons per day.

These proceedings and judgment having been removed into the Supreme Court for review, by certiorari, that court affirmed them and dismissed the writ. From such judgment this appeal is taken. Here, as in the court below, numerous questions are raised and urged. We deal with those that appear to be important, of which two are dispositive of the appeal.

1. That the application to the board of conservation and development was insufficient.

We conclude that the court below was correct in its finding upon this question and we concur in the result reached by it.

2. That the notice of hearing was not published in such newspapers as required by the statute, the complaint being that there were newspapers published nearer to the municipalities and persons concerned than those in which the notice was published.

Upon this point the Supreme Court settled the question of fact and as there were proofs to support such finding, and we do not find it to be erroneous in point of law, such finding will not be disturbed in this court.

To this may be added, that there is no showing that all parties did not have adequate and sufficient notice. On the contrary, the fact is that all ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.