88 N.J.L. 273 | N.J. | 1915
Lead Opinion
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The plaintiff instituted separate actions against the East Jersey Water Company and the Jersey City Water Supply Company, respectively, which were tried by consent before the same jury, resulting in a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in each case—against the East Jersey Water Company for $3,636.24 and against the other defendant for $7,031.77. Each defendant appealed to this court, where the cases were argued together under the samo exceptions. Among the numerous exceptions, on which errors are assigned, is one to the refusal of the trial court to charge, as requested, “if they [the jury] should ñnd that the plaintiff
Dissenting Opinion
(dissenting). I am unable to concur in the reversal of this judgment upon the ground stated in the opinion.
The responsibility of the plaintiffs to lower riparian owners and their liability to the State of New Jersey, or some of its public agencies, are distinct questions that could not be tried out in this action and were not attempted to be because of the lack of proper parties, proper pleadings and proper issues.
For affirmance—Garrison, Teen chard, Black, White, Terhune, JJ. 5.
For reversal—The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Swayze, Bergen, Mintubn, Kalisoh, Heppenheimeb, Taylor, JJ. 8.