« PreviousContinue »
13. Lusi Aquino, Administratrix ad Agrest et al., Plaintiffs in Error.
Prosequendum of Sabino Aquino, From the Supreme Court, 253
From the Supreme Court, 253
Township of Roxbury, in the 25. Bernard T. Tansey, Respond-
26. Henry Koch, Trading as H.
Atlantic City Railroad, Respond- Stefano Costello and Domenico
Association, a Corporation, Ap-
pellant, v. West Side Trust Co.
of Newark, New Jersey, a Cor-
fendant in Error, v. John Ve-
rona, Plaintiff in Error. From
the Supreme Court. (Affirm-
ance in part.)
29. Joseph Oppicci, Respondent, r.
From the Supreme Court,
istratrix, &c., of Martin T. Car-
Delaware, Lackawanna and
Western Railroad Co., Respond-
ent. From the Supreme Court.
249 31. Helen Hartman, an Infant, &c.,
Appellant, v. Unexcelled Manu-
facturing Co. et al., Respondents.
250 32. Ellen F. Hayes, Respondent. 1.
Mayor and Council of the City
Hudson County Circuit
23. The State of New Jersey, De- 33. Charles E. Smith, Administra-
fendant in Error, v. Abraham | tor, &c., Respondent, v. Bruns-
wick Laundry Co., Appellant. spondents. From the Supreme
14. Gaetano Fortunato, Respond-
ent, v. Antonetta Cicalese et al.,
Appellants. From the Supreme
45. Minnie Hahn, Respondent, v.
Delaware, Lackawanna and
Western Railroad Co., Appel-
lant. From the Supreme Court,
44646. Rose Hansen, Administratrix,
&c., Appellant, v. New York
road Co., Respondent. From the
447 47. Alfred H. Holbrook, Appellant.
v. City of East Orange et al.,
Respondents. From the Supreme
Court, 92 N. J. L. 292, 465
48. Pasquale Iarussi, Appellant, v.
Eagle Brewing Co. of Newark,
Respondent. From the Supreme
49. Charles H. Kern, Respondent,
1. Township 'of Palmyra, in the
County of Burlington, Albert N.
Stewart, Clerk of said Township,
and the County Board of Can-
vassers of the County of Burling-
ton, Appellants. From the Su-
rick Lundy, Deceased, Respond-
ent, v. George Brown & Co., a
Corporation, Appellant. From
455 51. Charles H. Miller, Appellant, v.
Town of Montclair et al., Re-
spondents. From the Supreme
456 52. Harry S. Myers. Appellant, v.
Borough of Roselle et al., Re-
1. Township of Dover et al., Re- Court, 92 N. J. L, 292, 473
53. Jacob L. Newman, Administra-|62. Joseph W. Sutton, Appellant,
tor of the Estate of Samuel Bot- V. The Township of Maurice
473 Erie Railroad Co., Appellant.
From the Supreme Court, 506
porated, Appellant, v. Herbert S.
From the 1. William S. Bowen et al., Appel-
lants, v. State of New Jersey and
From the Supreme Court, 243
2. John H. Monahan et al., Appel-
lants, V. State of New Jersey
and Court of Quarter Sessions of
From the Supreme Court, 213
57. State of New Jersey. Defendant 1. Adele Giardini, Administratrix,
in Error, Frank Bowen. &c., Respondent, v. William G.
478 Railroads, Appellant. From the
Camden County Circuit Court.
in Error, v. John Verona, Plaint-
iff in Error. From the Supreme
Court. (Modified in part.) 389
The Furst Store, Appellant.
From the Supreme Court, 127
trator, &c., Appellant, 1. Com- 2. State of New Jersey, Plaintiff
in Error, v. Frank E. Taylor,
ent. v. Ferdinand Coirin and Jo- 3. Martha Cavanagh and Daniel A.
4. Charles A. Fischer, Executor, spondent. From the Supreme
167 and Aldermen of Jersey City et
al., Respondents. From the Su-
16. Mary Talmadge, Respondent, v.
Central Railroad Co. of New Western Railroad Co., Appel-
&c., Respondent, v. Metropolitan In view of the Certiorari act of
sale for unpaid taxes, and pro-
ceedings upon which it was
Harry J. Max, Impleaded, &c., from the date of sale. Sutton v.
9. William A. Fagan. Respondent,
203 ald C. Taggart, the mortgagee in
the foregoing mortgage named.
Manufacturers, &c., Insurance says that the true consideration
220 Frederick S. Taggart on Novem-
ber 1st, 1916, evidenced by a cer-
lant, v. Ida E. Searles et al., him to me, dated November 1st.
num, interest on which has been
ant in Error, v. John H. Young, nent further says that there is
396 three thousand dollars besides
lawful interest thereon from the
Rudolph M. Hertshorn et al., dred and eighteen," read to-
421 body of the mortgage, is a suffi-
cient compliance with the terms
&c.Appellant. v. Commercial 463, I 4; Pamph. L. 1902. p.
2. The affidavit and the recitals in an agreement to divide it equally
the body of the mortgage should between the conspirators, but he
Ib. share. Subsequently, defendant
ascertaining that he had been de-
the mortgage must show how the demanded and was paid a share
Ib. nal conspiracy to cheat and de-
defraud a person and divide the
there is an honest and substan- after the contemplated division
Ib. fore the indictment was found,
the statute was not a bar be-
cluded by the limitation until
two years after the last overt act
District Court act (Comp. Stat., agreement. State v. Gregory.
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
tained five per cent. of the con-
tract price, which amounted to
$9.830.14, Afterwards the con-
tract and the retained percentage
R., and by him to M. W. N.. the
plaintiff. J. B. R., as principal.
and the defendant, G. I. C.. as
convicted of a conspiracy to plaintiff, M. W. N., in the penal