17. Patrick McCarty, Respondent, [
v. Town of West Hoboken, Ap-28. The State of New Jersey, De-
18. Thomas J. Cahill, Respondent,
v. Town of West Hoboken, Ap-|
pellant. From the Supreme
Court,
247
19. Ocean Grove Camp Meeting As-
sociation, &c., Respondent, v.
Borough of Bradley Beach, Ap-
pellant. From the Supreme
Court, 91 N. J. L. 364, 1 249
20. Werner Schwartzenbach, Ad-
ministrator, &c., Respondent, v.
Ernest Antoine, Appellant.
From the Passaic County Cir-
cuit Court,
fendant in Error, v. John Ve-
rona, Plaintiff in Error. From
the Supreme Court. (Affirm-
389
ance in part.)
29. Joseph Oppicci, Respondent, v.
Erie Railroad Co.. Appellant.
394
From the Supreme Court,
30. Catherine A. Carberry, Admin-
istratrix, &c.. of Martin T. Car-
berry, Deceased. Appellant. r.
Delaware, Lackawanna and
Western Railroad Co., Respond-
ent. From the Supreme Court.
414
249 31. Helen Hartman. an Infant, &c.,
21. William Simpson. Respondent.
v. New Jersey Stone and Tile
Co., Appellant. From the Su-
preme Court.
250
22. Juliana Sperr. Respondent. v.
John Birch, Appellant. From
the Supreme Court,
252
Appellant, v. Unexcelled Manu-
facturing Co. et al., Respondents.
From the Supreme Court, 418
32. Ellen F. Hayes, Respondent. v.
Mayor and Council of the City
of Hoboken, Appellant. From
the Hudson County Circuit
Court,
432
23. The State of New Jersey, De- 33. Charles E. Smith, Administra-
fendant in Error, v. Abraham tor, &c., Respondent, v. Bruns-
v. The Township of Maurice
River, in the County of Cumber-
land, Respondent. From the Su-
preme Court,
504
53. Jacob L. Newman, Administra-||62. Joseph W. Sutton, Appellant,
tor of the Estate of Samuel Bot-
kin. Deceased, Appellant, V.
Sadie Mankowitz, Administra-
trix of the Estate of Louis Man-
kowitz, Deceased, et al., Re-
spondents. From the Supreme
Court,
54. Joseph W. North & Son, Incor-
porated, Appellant, v. Herbert S.
North, Individually and as Exe-j
cutor of Joseph W. North, De-i
63. Charles Zona, Respondent, v.
Erie Railroad Co., Appellant.
From the Supreme Court, 506
ceased. Respondent. From the 1. William S. Bowen et al., Appel-
lants, v. State of New Jersey and
Court of Quarter Sessions of
Union County, Respondents.
From the Supreme Court, 243
57. State of New Jersey, Defendant 1. Adele Giardini, Administratrix,
in Error, v. Frank Bowen.
Plaintiff in Error. From the
Supreme Court,
58. State of New Jersey, Defend-'
ant in Error, v. Abraham Sa-
maha. Plaintiff in Error. From 2.
the Supreme Court, 92 N. J. L.'
125,
482
&c.. Respondent, v. William G.
McAdoo, Director General of
Railroads, Appellant. From the
Camden County Circuit Court.
State of New Jersey. Defendant
in Error, v. John Verona. Plaint-
iff in Error. From the Supreme
Court. (Modified in part.) 389
59. State of New Jersey, Defendant
in Error, r. Tony Tachin et al.,
Plaintiffs in Error. From the
Supreme Court, 92 N. J. L. 269. 1. Helen Garland, Respondent, v.
485 The Furst Store, Appellant.
From the Supreme Court, 127
60. Robert L. Stephens, Adminis-
trator, &c., Appellant. v. Com-2. State of New Jersey, Plaintiff
missioners of Palisades Inter-
state Park, Respondent.
the Supreme Court,
61. George H. Stevens, Respond-
in Error, v. Frank E. Taylor,
Defendant in Error. From the
Supreme Court, 92 N. J. L. 135.
159
Cavanagh, Respondents, v. Ho-
boken Land and Improvement
Co., Appellant. From the Hud-
son County Circuit Court, 163
ent. . Ferdinand Coirin and Jo- 3. Martha Cavanagh and Daniel A.
seph Formanns, Builders, and
Ferdinand Coirin and Leonie
Coirin, Owners, Appellants.
From the Supreme Court, 502
VOL. XCIII.
&c., Respondent, v. Metropolitan In view of the Certiorari act of
Life Insurance Co., Appellant.
From the Supreme Court, 189
9. William A. Fagan, Respondent,
v. Central Railroad Co. of New
1903, section 14, a review of the
sale for unpaid taxes, and pro-
ceedings upon which it was
based, is limited to three years
from the date of sale. Sutton v.
504
Maurice River,
Jersey, Appellant. From the 1. An affidavit annexed to a chattel
Monmouth County Circuit
Court,
mortgage in these words: "Don-
ald C. Taggart, the mortgagee in
the foregoing mortgage named,
being duly sworn, on his oath,
says that the true consideration
of said mortgage is as follows.
viz. Money loaned to the said
Frederick S. Taggart on Novem-
ber 1st, 1916, evidenced by a cer-
tain promissory note made by
him to me, dated November 1st.
1916, and due in one year, with
interest at six per cent. per an-
num, interest on which has been
paid to May 1st, 1917, and depo-
nent further says that there is
due on said mortgage the sum of
three thousand dollars besides
lawful interest thereon from the
first day of May. nineteen hun-
dred and eighteen," read to-
gether, with the recitals in the
body of the mortgage, is a suffi-
cient compliance with the terms
of the statute. Comp. Stat., p.
463. ¶ 4; Pamph. L. 1902, p.
487, 4. Shupe v. Taggart, 123
![[blocks in formation]](https://books.google.co.za/books/content?id=P0gaAAAAYAAJ&output=html_text&pg=PA515&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&q=Supreme+Court&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U1XA5idhjAIYQKb13PLVWSxr7_GdA&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=149,210,357,1244)
an agreement to divide it equally
between the conspirators, but he
falsely represented to them that
he obtained only $20,000, which
was divided, defendant getting a
share. Subsequently, defendant
ascertaining that he had been de-
frauded by his co-conspirator.
demanded and was paid a share
of the residue of the money ex-
torted. The first division was
more than two years prior to
the finding of the indictment, but
the last was within the statutory
limitation. Held, that the last
division was a continuance of
the conspiracy and that the origi-
nal conspiracy to cheat and de-
defraud a person and divide the
proceeds was not completed until
after the contemplated division
of the proceeds was finally con-
cluded, and if there was a di-
vision within two years, that be-
ing the statutory limitation, be-
fore the indictment was found,
the statute was not a bar be-
cause the crime was not con-
cluded by the limitation until
two years after the last overt act
in furtherance of the corrupt
agreement. State v. Gregory.
205
1. B. R. entered into a contract
with the freeholders of Atlantic
to build a road. It was finished
and accepted, subject to B. R.'s
obligation to maintain and repair
it for one year thereafter, to se-
cure which the freeholders, under
the terms of the agreement, re-
tained five per cent. of the con-
tract price, which amounted to
$9.830.14. Afterwards the con-
tract and the retained percentage
were assigned by B. R. to J. B.
R., and by him to M. W. N., the
plaintiff. J. B. R.. as principal.
and the defendant, G. I. C.. as
surety, entered into a bond to the
plaintiff. M. W. N., in the penal
sum of $10.000, with condition
that if the principal. J. B. R..
should repair all defects in the
roadway arising from defective
|