
    RINGWOOD COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. TOWNSHIP OF WEST MILFORD, DEFENDANT IN ERROR.
    Submitted December 15, 1911
    Decided March 5, 1912.
    On error to the Supreme Court, in which the following opinion was filed:
    
      Per Curiam.
    This writ brings up for review the proceedings of the township of West Milford, in the count}' of Passaic, for the opening of a public road through the lands of the prosecutor.
    The proceedings were instituted under the provisions of the act entitled “An act concerning townships.'’ Pamph. L. 1899, p. 372.
    We find from the testimony in the ease that the ordinance providing for the opening of the road was passed in accordance with the requirements prescribed by law; that the prosecutor received the statutory notice, and that its agent appeared before the township committee for the purpose of opposing the passage of the ordinance.
    It is further to be observed in this connection that if any legal objection involving the power of the township to pass the ordinance existed, it is too late to urge that objection now, since the contract for the improvement has been awarded and the work substantially completed and an interval of five months had elapsed after the passage of the ordinance before the prosecutor attempted to assert its right by applying for the writ. Laches so gross invariably has been held to estop the prosecutor from asserting a claim which if allowed would result not only in the sacrifice of a public right but of public property and funds expended on the strength of an apparent acquiescence of the prosecutor. Brewer v. Elizabeth, 37 Vroom 547; McKevitt v. Hoboken, 16 Id. 482; Carver v. Camden, 49 Id. 293.
    If the award of the commissioners for condemnation be unsatisfactory, the statute prescribes a remedy by way of appeal, so that the Ringwood Company may not be subject to damages without a hearing. Pamph. L. 1899, p. 405, § 80.
    For these reasons the ordinance in question, and the proceedings instituted thereunder, are affirmed, with costs.
    For the plaintiff in error, Randal B. Lewis.
    
    For the defendant in error, Michael J. Murphy.
    
   Per Curiam.

There being evidence to support the findings of the Supreme .-Court as to the fact of notice and of laches on the part of the plaintiff in error, the judgment of that court is affirmed for the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion.

For affirmance—The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Trenchard, Bergen, Voorhees, Kalisch, Bogert, Vredenburgh, Vroom, Congdon, White, Treacy, JJ. ' 14.

For reversal—None. ■  