LAW.coLAW.co

WILLIAM R. CARROLL ET AL., RESPONDENTS, v. CITY OF BAYONNE, APPELLANT; JAMES QUINN ET AL., RESPONDENTS, v. CITY OF BAYONNE, APPELLANT

New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals1924-04-04
99 N.J.L. 493

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

majority opinion

Per Curiam.

The judgments under review should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Supreme Court, but with this comment: The fact that the old board was still in existence as a de jure board, precludes any sound legal theory that the incoming board was a de facto board at the time it assumed authority to act. The judgments are affirmed, with costs. For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Mintuen, Kalisch, Black, Katzenbaoh, Campbell, Gardner, Van Buskirk, Clark, JJ. 10.

For reversal — None.