Holeton v. Borough of Newfield
1929 N.J. LEXIS 248
| N.J. | 1929|
Check TreatmentLead Opinion
The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by the Supreme Court.
Concurrence Opinion
The Supreme Court did not advert to the point raised here, that the ordinance was vulnerable because of the personal interest of the mayor as an abutting owner. The point was properly ignored because it was not raised in the reasons. Rahway v. StateBoard of Health,
For affirmance — THE CHANCELLOR, CHIEF JUSTICE, TRENCHARD, PARKER, KALISCH, KATZENBACH, LLOYD, VAN BUSKIRK, McGLENNON, KAYS, HETFIELD, JJ. 11.
For reversal — None.
