"[T] he doctrine of stare decisis, like almost every other legal rule, is not without its exceptions. It does not apply to a case where it can be shown that the law has been misunderstood or misapplied, or where the former determination is evidently contrary to reason. The authorities are abundant to show that in such cases it is the duty of courts to re-examine the question

Our court said, long ago, that it had not only the right, but the duty to re-examine a question where justice demands it

—involving plaintiffs who sought to recover damages after railroad cut off plaintiffs' access to the river

Paterson & Newark Railroad, 5 Vroom,(34 NJ Law,) 532—that the owner of land bounded by tide water may maintain an action against a railroad corporation constructing its road by authority of the legislature so as to cut off his access to the water.

Concededly, these rights, which include the right of access to the navigable part of the stream in front of the land, regardless of the ownership of the submerged bed, may not be taken for public use except upon the payment of just compensation

—the Court of Appeals unanimously reversed itself, Judge Denis O'Brien saying, 14 "It is no doubt true that even a single adjudication of this court, upon a question properly before it, is not to be questioned or disregarded except for the most cogent reasons, and then only in a case where it is plain that the judgment was the result of a mistaken view of the condition of the …

But the further statement by the same learned judge, that the "legislative authorization exempts only from liability to suits civil or criminal, at the instance of the state; it does not affect any claim of a private citizen for damages for any special inconvenience and discomfort not experienced by the public at large" reflects a narrower view of the effect of legal authorization than …

In the second situation, where a railroad takes submerged lands under a grant from the state, and fills them to construct its road, the upland owner's riparian rights are not cut off

—tenant's damages determined by diminished value of the property as it was, not potential value if property had been put to another use