
    Albert C. Weed, appellant, v. Township of Hillsdale, respondent.
    [Argued June 21st, 1915.
    Decided October 15th, 1915.]
    On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Lewis, who filed the following opinion:'
    I have examined the papers and briefs in this case, and it seems to me that a review of the cases in this State and elsewhere all lead one to the conclusion that the court of equity has no jurisdiction in the matters involved in this issue, and that the appropriate remedy is by a suit at law. I do not find in the brief a ease which authorizes a court of equity to interfere by injunction with the enforcement of an ordinance adopted by the governing body of a municipality for the regulation or construction of approaches upon its highway, and I cannot agree that the case falls under the second and third classes enumerated in Hart v. Leonard, N. J. Hq. L16. The testimony discloses that the right claimed by the complainant to maintain an obstruction of. any kind along the gutter of the Pascack road is not admitted, and the legal right is assuredly in dispute. The evidence of complainant and defendant is at variance with any such contention. The law court is the appropriate forum to try out the issue involved in this litigation before this court can take jurisdiction.
    
      Messrs. Collins & Corbin, for the appellant.
    
      Mr. Warner W. Westervelt, for the respondent.
   Per Curiam.

The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice-Chancellor Lewis.

For affirmance—Ti-ie Chief-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Trenci-iard, Parker) Bergen, Minturn, Kaliscit, Black, Vredenburgit, Heppenheimer, Williams, Taylor—13.

For reversal—None.  