State v. Inhabitants of the City of Trenton
| Decision Date | 06 November 1890 |
| Citation | 20 A. 738,53 N.J.L. 178 |
| Parties | STATE (WILSON, Prosecutor) v. INHABITANTS OF THE CITY OF TRENTON. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
On certiorari.
Argued at June term, 1890, before REED and GARRISON, JJ.
G. D. W. Vroom and Geo. M. Robeson, for prosecutor. W. N. Lanning, for defendants.
The reasons urged by the prosecutor for setting aside the proceedings and assessment against him incident to the opening of Tyler street, in the city of Trenton, may be resolved into four:
First. Because the common council did not treat with the owners of the land required for opening said street for the purchase of the same before applying to the board of city assessors to make an estimate and assessment of the damages that the said owners sustained by opening said street.
The prosecutor, by appearing in his own behalf before the board of assessors, without questioning their jurisdiction to award to him the damages which he claimed, has waived this objection. Moreover, the testimony taken in this case shows that the common council did treat with the prosecutor through the duly accredited representative of a committee to whom the matter had been specifically referred by said council, and it also shows that the result of the treaty, so far as the prosecutor was concerned, was not only a failure to agree upon a purchase price, but a distinct understanding that the whole question should be referred to the board of city assessors.
Second. Because the estimates and assessments were wrong as to amounts, and computed upon erroneous principles.
The report of the board distinctly affirms the correct rule in regard to benefits and damages, and there is nothing in the case to negative the presumption thus raised. The fact that certain witnesses, examined under the rule in these proceedings, differ in their estimates from that of the assessors upon the matter of values, is without significance.
Third. Because the estimates and assessments and the notice thereof required by the charter to give force and validity to these proceedings were not given, served upon, or notified to the person interested, as is required by the express provisions of said charter in respect thereto.
The language of the city charter is as follows, (vide section 83:) "It shall be the duty of the common council of said city, within one month after the presentation of the said report, to cause a notice of the appropriation of said assessment and costs to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial