Everett W. Cox Co. v. State Highway Comm'n
Decision Date | 19 May 1926 |
Docket Number | No. 227.,227. |
Citation | 133 A. 419 |
Parties | EVERETT W. COX CO. v. STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION et al. |
Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Certiorari by the Everett W. Cox Company, Prosecutor, directed to the Clerk of the County of Hudson to review an order appointing commissioners for condemnation, by the State Highway Commission, of lands located in Jersey City belonging to the Everett W. Cox Company. Order appointing commissioners affirmed.
Argued January term, 1926, before TRENCHARD and KATZENBACH, JJ.
Mark Townsend, Jr., and George B. Sleigh, both of Jersey City (Harry Lane, of Jersey City, of counsel), for prosecutor.
Mark A. Sullivan, of Jersey City, for respondent State Highway Commission.
Thomas J. Brogan, Corporation Counsel, of Jersey City, for respondent Jersey City.
This case is before this court on a writ of certiorari directed to the clerk of the county of Hudson. The writ was allowed to review an order appointing commissioners for the condemnation of lands located in the city of Jersey City belonging to the Everett W. Cox Company. The condemning party is the state highway commission.
The prosecutor is in possession of a parcel of land bounded by Collard street, Hopkins avenue, Bevan street, and Underwood terrace. It is the owner of a portion of the tract, and has a long-term lease on the remainder. The prosecutor is making improvements upon the land in question involving an expenditure of $175,000. The state highway commission instituted the proceedings for the purpose of acquiring a strip of this land 39 feet in width for a distance of 266.16 feet along Underwood place, which is the street on the southerly side of said property.
The condemnation proceeding is taken in connection with the building of the approaches to the vehicular tunnel. The commission claims that the land will be a part of the state highway's route No. 1. Accompanying the statement of the case is a map which shows with great detail the plans of the state highway commission. The approaches to the tunnel are to be surface, depressed, and overhead. The overhead approach is nearest to the tunnel entrance, and will extend from Jersey avenue to Paterson avenue. There will be depressed approaches and surface approaches, which at certain places will be connected by ramps. The route was settled by a resolution passed by the state highway commission. The resolution designating the route at the point where the prosecutor's property abuts Underwood place reads as follows:
Two grounds for setting aside the order are urged by the prosecutor. The first is that the state highway commission has no power to take the land of the prosecutor by condemnation, as the property to be taken is not to be used as a part of the state highway route No. 1, but is to be used as a street of the city of Jersey City. Abutting the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kansas City v. Ashley, 51618
...entitled to object place himself in the shoes of one entitled to object who chooses not to do so, Everett W. Cox Co. v. State Highway Commission, 4 N.J.Misc. 510, 133 A. 419, 420; University City v. Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co., 347 Mo. 814, 149 S.W.2d 321. Of course the owners of the property ......
-
City of Newark v. New Jersey Turnpike Authority
...102 N.J.Eq. 221, 140 A. 335 (Ch.1928), affirmed, 103 N.J.Eq. 376, 143 A. 916 (E. & A.1928), and in Everett W. Cox Co. v. State Highway Commission, 4 N.J.Misc. 510, 133 A. 419 (Sup.Ct.1926), to the effect that the discretionary power of a body charged with highway construction is absolute. S......
-
State Highway Comm'n v. City of Elizabeth
...only reported case in which the question has been noticed, and to which my attention has been called, is that of Everett W. Cox Co. v. State Highway Commission, 133 A. 419, and there the Supreme Court refused to pass on the question, as it had not been raised by the municipality concerned. ......
-
Taylorwhite Extracting Co. v. State Highway Comm'n
...any lands," etc., "by gift, devise, purchase, or by condemnation," etc. These powers have been upheld by this court in Cox v. State Highway Commission, 133 A. 419. The act should be liberally construed to effect the purpose of the act for building of state We find no legal reason for distur......