Kountze v. Proprietors of the Morris Aqueduct
Kountze v. Proprietors of the Morris Aqueduct
58 N.J.L. 695; 34 A. 1099; 29 Vroom 695; 1896 N.J. LEXIS 61
Cases that cite this one
19 later published cases cite this decision.
- New Haven Water Co. v. Russell (Conn. 1912)
- In THE MATTER OF McCALL (Court of Chancery of Delaware 1978)
- In re Probate of the Last Will & Testament of McCall (Court of Chancery of Delaware 1978)
- Alexander v. Manza (N.J. 1944)
- Szymczak v. LaFerrara (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1995)
- Adams v. Greenwich Water Co. (Conn. 1951)
- Smith v. Anderson (Colo. 1950)
- Conduit Found. Corp. v. City of Atlantic City (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1949)
- Moro v. Pulone (New Jersey Court of Chancery 1947)
- Fid. Union Trust v. Prudent Invest. (New Jersey Court of Chancery 1941)
- Mann v. Bugbee (New Jersey Court of Chancery 1933)
- Brogan v. Ferguson (Fla. 1930)
- Olson v. Shephard (Minn. 1926)
- Adams v. Iowa Gas & Electric Co. (Iowa 1925)
- Kinyon Investment Co. v. Belmont State Bank (Mont. 1923)
- Pathé Exchange, Inc. v. Miller (D.C. Cir. 1922)
- Kearns-Gorsuch Bottle Co. v. Hartford-Fairmont Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 1921)
- Price v. Stratton (Fla. 1903)
- Habbe v. Viele (Ind. 1897)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The legal questions involved in this ease were, we think, rightly dealt with in the opinion of the Supreme Court. The matters of fact decided in that court are not subject to review in the Court of Errors.
The judgment below must be affirmed.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief • Justice, Depue, Dixon, Gummere, Ludlow, Barkalow, Bogert, Nixon. 9.
For reversal—None.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.