From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

N.J. Suburban Water Co. v. Riordan

Court of Errors and Appeals
Dec 2, 1926
135 A. 919 (N.J. 1926)

Opinion

Submitted October 29, 1926 —

Decided December 2, 1926.

On appeal from the Supreme Court, whose per curiam is printed in 4 N.J. Mis. R. 256.

For the respondent, Thomas J. Brogan.

For the appellant, Mark A. Sullivan.


The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by the Supreme Court.

For affirmance — THE CHANCELLOR, CHIEF JUSTICE, MINTURN, KALISCH, CAMPBELL, WHITE, VAN BUSKIRK, McGLENNON, KAYS, HETFIELD, JJ. 10.

For reversal — None.


Summaries of

N.J. Suburban Water Co. v. Riordan

Court of Errors and Appeals
Dec 2, 1926
135 A. 919 (N.J. 1926)
Case details for

N.J. Suburban Water Co. v. Riordan

Case Details

Full title:NEW JERSEY SUBURBAN WATER COMPANY, RESPONDENT, v. JOSEPH P. RIORDAN…

Court:Court of Errors and Appeals

Date published: Dec 2, 1926

Citations

135 A. 919 (N.J. 1926)
135 A. 919

Citing Cases

Petition of County of Essex

See Saddle River, supra, 71 N.J. at 23, 362 A.2d 552. See also New Jersey Suburban Water Co. v. Riordan, 4…

Layne-Western Co. v. Buchanan County

See Hanick v. Marion County, 312 Mo. 73, 278 S.W. 730. Contracts otherwise competitive are sometimes held to…