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
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
« PreviousContinue » |