Sayre v. City of Orange
| Decision Date | 11 November 1907 |
| Parties | SAYRE v. CITY OF ORANGE. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Certiorari by Marcus Sayre against the city of Orange to review proceedings by the city to condemn land for a water main. Writ denied.
Argued June term, 1907, before HENDRICKSON, PITNEY, and TRENCHARD, JJ.
Robert R. Howard, for the motion. William A. Lord, opposed.
The writ is denied. If there was any doubt of the authority of the city counsel to institute condemnation proceedings, the city has adopted his act by resisting the present application.
We cannot accede to the suggestion that it is not necessary for the city to carry its pipe through Sayre's property because, by continuing the water main 200 feet along Ridgewood Road, it could be connected with the water main along Railroad avenue without crossing private property. It is settled by the decision of the Court of Errors and Appeals that the word "necessary," in cases involving the right of eminent domain, does not mean absolutely necessary or indispensable. It is sufficient if the right proposed to be acquired is reasonably necessary to secure the end in view. Olmsted v. Proprietors of Morris Aqueduct, 47 N. J. Law, 311.
We think the taking proposed by the city of Orange in the present case is within that ruling.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Solether v. Ohio Turnpike Commission
... ... necessary or indispensable', but 'reasonably necessary to secure the end in view.' Sayre v. City of Orange, N. J., 67 A. 933; Chicago, I. & L. R. Co. v. Baugh, 175 Ind. 419, 94 N.E. 571; ... ...
-
State ex rel. Ohio History Connection v. Moundbuilders Country Club Co.
...but, rather, 'reasonably necessary to secure the end in view.'" Licking C.P. No. 18 CV 01284 (May 10, 2019), quoting Sayre v. Orange, 67 A. 933 (N.J. 1907). end in view here is inclusion on the list of World Heritage Sites. And that end in view was speculative and outside the control of the......
-
Hackensack Water Co., Application of
...other statutes specifying a gauge to govern action of a public utility, Olmsted Proprietors of Morris Aqueduct, supra; Sayre v. City of Orange, 67 A. 933 (Sup.Ct.1907), not officially reported; Public Service Railway Co. v. Frazer, 87 N.J.Eq. 679, 102 A. 890 (Ch.1914); Frazer v. Public Serv......
- Borough of Glassboro v. Grossman, DOCKET NO. A-4556-17T2