Carroll v. City of Bayonne

Per Curiam.

The judgments under review should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Supreme Court, but with this comment: The fact that the old board was still in existence as a de jure board, precludes any sound legal theory that the incoming board was a de facto board at the time it assumed authority to act. The judgments are affirmed, with costs.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Mintuen, Kalisch, Black, Katzenbaoh, Campbell, Gardner, Van Buskirk, Clark, JJ. 10.

For reversal — None.