Page images

Cases Affirmed.

Cases Affirmed.


13. Lusi Aquino, Administratrix ad Agrest et al., Plaintiffs in Error.

Prosequendum of Sabino Aquino, From the Supreme Court, 253
Deceased, Appellant, v. The Mor-
ris County Traction Co., Re-24. The State of New Jersey, De-
spondent. From the Morris fendant in Error, V. Edward
County Circuit Court, 233 Moynihan, Plaintiff in Error.

From the Supreme Court, 253
14. The Board of Education of the

Township of Roxbury, in the 25. Bernard T. Tansey, Respond-
County of Morris. Appellant, v. ent, v. Charles Tedesco. Appel-
James T. Kerr, Trading as J. T. lant. From the Supreme Court,
Kerr & Co., Respondent. From

the Supreme Court,


26. Henry Koch, Trading as H.
15. Charles F. Culp. Appellant, v. Koch & Co. Respondent,

Atlantic City Railroad, Respond- Stefano Costello and Domenico
ent. From the Supreme Court, Botti, Appellants. From the Su-

preme Court,

16. Edna Dickinson, Appellant, v. 27. Pannonia Building and Loan
The Delaware, Lackawanna and

Association, a Corporation, Ap-
Western Railroad Co., Respond-

pellant, v. West Side Trust Co.
ent. From the Supreme Court.

of Newark, New Jersey, a Cor-
poration, Respondent. From the

17. Patrick McCarty, Respondent,

Supreme Court,
v. Town of West Hoboken, Ap- '28. The State of New Jersey, De-
pellant. From the Supreme

fendant in Error, v. John Ve-


rona, Plaintiff in Error. From
18. Thomas J. Cahill. Respondent,

the Supreme Court. (Affirm-

1. Town of West Hoboken, Ap-

ance in part.)
pellant. From the Supreme

29. Joseph Oppicci, Respondent, r.
Erie Railroad Co., Appellant.

19. Ocean Grove Camp Meeting As-

From the Supreme Court,
sociation, &c. Respondent, v.
Borough of Bradley Beach. Ap- 30. Catherine A. Carberry. Admin-
pellant. From the Supreme

istratrix, &c., of Martin T. Car-
Court, 91 N. J. L. 364, 249 berry, Deceased. Appellant. .

Delaware, Lackawanna and
20. Werner Schwartzenbach. Ad-

Western Railroad Co., Respond-
ministrator, &c., Respondent, t.

ent. From the Supreme Court.
Ernest Antoine, Appellant.

From the Passaic County Cir-
cuit Court,

249 31. Helen Hartman, an Infant, &c.,

Appellant, v. Unexcelled Manu-
21. William Simpson. Respondent.

facturing Co. et al., Respondents.
1. New Jersey Stone and Tile From the Supreme Court,

Co., Appellant. From the Su-
preme Court.

250 32. Ellen F. Hayes, Respondent. 1.

Mayor and Council of the City
22. Juliana Sperr, Respondent. 1. of Hoboken, Appellant. From
John Birch, Appellant. From

Hudson County Circuit
the Supreme Court,
252 Court,



23. The State of New Jersey, De- 33. Charles E. Smith, Administra-

fendant in Error, v. Abraham | tor, &c., Respondent, v. Bruns-

Cases Affirmed.

Cases Affirmed.

wick Laundry Co., Appellant. spondents. From the Supreme
From the Hudson County Cir- Court, 92 N. J. L, 292, 460
cuit Court,


14. Gaetano Fortunato, Respond-
34. Herbert S. North, Individually

ent, v. Antonetta Cicalese et al.,
and as Executor of Joseph W.

Appellants. From the Supreme
North, Deceased, Respondent, v.


Joseph W. North & Son, Incor-
porated, Appellant. From the
Supreme Court,

45. Minnie Hahn, Respondent, v.

Delaware, Lackawanna and
35. Frank M. Baer, Respondent, v.

Western Railroad Co., Appel-
The Lehigh and Hudson River

lant. From the Supreme Court,
92 N. J. L. 277,

Railway Co., Appellant. From
the Supreme Court, 93 N. J. L.

44646. Rose Hansen, Administratrix,

&c., Appellant, v. New York
36. Eliza Bright, Administratrix of Central and Hudson River Rail-
Harry Bright, Deceased, Re-

road Co., Respondent. From the
spondent,' v. The Lehigh and Hudson County Circuit Court,
Hudson River Railway Co., Ap-

pellant. From the Supreme

447 47. Alfred H. Holbrook, Appellant.

v. City of East Orange et al.,
37. Ernest R. Brown, Appellant, v.

Respondents. From the Supreme
Borough of Dunellen et al., Re-

Court, 92 N. J. L. 292, 465
spondents. From the Supreme
Court, 92 N. J. L. 292, 449

48. Pasquale Iarussi, Appellant, v.
38. Eva Buckley. Appellant,

Eagle Brewing Co. of Newark,
Ellsworth Camp, No. 32, Sons of

Respondent. From the Supreme

Veterans, Respondent. From
the Supreme Court,


49. Charles H. Kern, Respondent,
39. Christine Carroll, Appellant, v.

1. Township 'of Palmyra, in the

County of Burlington, Albert N.
Ellsworth Camp, No. 32, Sons of
Veterans, Respondent. From

Stewart, Clerk of said Township,

the Supreme Court,

and the County Board of Can-

vassers of the County of Burling-
40. S. Lawrence Bullock, Appel-

ton, Appellants. From the Su-

lant, v. The Township of North-

preme Court,
ampton, in the County of Bur-
lington, Respondent. From the 50. Mary Lundy, Widow of Pat-
Supreme Court,


rick Lundy, Deceased, Respond-
Cases Affirmed.

ent, v. George Brown & Co., a
41. Cumberland County Gas Co.,

Corporation, Appellant. From
Appellant, v. Wilbert J. Simmer- the Supreme Court, 93 N. J. L.
man, Collector, &c., Respondent.

From the Supreme Court, 92
V. J. L. 361,

455 51. Charles H. Miller, Appellant, v.

Town of Montclair et al., Re-
42. The Paul Delaney Co., Re-

spondents. From the Supreme
spondent, v. Joseph Freedman Court, 92 N. J. L. 292, 472
Co. et al., Appellants. From the
Supreme Court,

456 52. Harry S. Myers. Appellant, v.

Borough of Roselle et al., Re-
43. William R. Fischer, appellant, spondents. From the Supreme

1. Township of Dover et al., Re- Court, 92 N. J. L, 292, 473


Cases Reversed.


53. Jacob L. Newman, Administra-|62. Joseph W. Sutton, Appellant,

tor of the Estate of Samuel Bot- V. The Township of Maurice
kin, Deceased, Appellant, River, in the County of Cumber-
Sadie Mankowitz, Administra- land, Respondent. From the Su-
trix of the Estate of Louis Man-

preme Court,

kowitz, Deceased, et al., Re-
spondents. From the Supreme 63. Charles Zona, Respondent, v.

473 Erie Railroad Co., Appellant.

From the Supreme Court, 506
51. Joseph W. North & Son, Incor-

porated, Appellant, v. Herbert S.
Vorth, Individually and as Exe-

cutor of Joseph W. Worth, De-
ceased, Respondent.

From the 1. William S. Bowen et al., Appel-
Supreme Court,


lants, v. State of New Jersey and
Court of Quarter Sessions of

5.5. Charles H. Nutting, Appellant,

County, Respondents.

From the Supreme Court, 243
1. Borough of Caldwell et al.,
Respondents. From the Su-

2. John H. Monahan et al., Appel-
preme Court, 92 V. J. L. 292,

lants, V. State of New Jersey

and Court of Quarter Sessions of

56. Chester G. Ryerson, Appellant.

County, Respondents.

From the Supreme Court, 213
1. Ella A. Carter, Respondent.
From the Supreme Court, 92
V. J. L. 363,



57. State of New Jersey. Defendant 1. Adele Giardini, Administratrix,

in Error, Frank Bowen. &c., Respondent, v. William G.
Plaintiff in Error. From the McAdoo, Director General of
Supreme Court,

478 Railroads, Appellant. From the

Camden County Circuit Court.
58. State of New Jersey, Defend-

ant in Error, v. Abraham Sa-
maha, Plaintiff in Error. From 2. State of New Jersey. Defendant
the Supreme Court, 92 N. J. L.

in Error, v. John Verona, Plaint-


iff in Error. From the Supreme

Court. (Modified in part.) 389
5.9. State of New Jersey, Defendant
in Error, 1. Tony Tachin et al.,

Plaintiffs in Error. From the
Supreme Court, 92 V. J. L. 269. 1. Helen Garland, Respondent, v.


The Furst Store, Appellant.

From the Supreme Court, 127
60. Robert L. Stephens, Adminis-

trator, &c., Appellant, 1. Com- 2. State of New Jersey, Plaintiff
missioners of Palisades Inter-

in Error, v. Frank E. Taylor,
state Park, Respondent. From Defendant in Error. From the
the Supreme Court,

Supreme Court, 92 N. J. L. 135.

61. George H. Stevens, Respond-

ent. v. Ferdinand Coirin and Jo- 3. Martha Cavanagh and Daniel A.
seph Formanns, Builders, and Cavanagh, Respondents, 1. Ho-
Ferdinand Coirin and Leonie boken Land and Improvement
(oirin. Owners, Appellants. ('o., Appellant. From the Hud-
From the Supreme Court, 502 son County Circuit Court, 103


Cases Reversed.

Chattel Mortgages.

4. Charles A. Fischer, Executor, spondent. From the Supreme
&c., Respondent, v. William F. Court,

Spierling and Amelia Spierling,
Appellants. From the Supreme| 15. Passaic Valley Sewerage Com-
Court. (Reversal as to William missioners, Appellant, v. Mayor
F. Spierling.)

167 and Aldermen of Jersey City et

al., Respondents. From the Su-
5. Felice Buonfiglio, Respondent, v. preme Court, 92 N. J. L. 264.
R. Neumann & Co., Appellant.

From the Supreme Court, 174

16. Mary Talmadge, Respondent, v.
6. Louis Drago, Respondent, New York, Susquehanna and

Central Railroad Co. of New Western Railroad Co., Appel-
Jersey, Appellant. From the lant. From the Supreme Court,
Hudson County Circuit Court,


7. Mary McAuliffe, Administratrix,

&c., Respondent, v. Metropolitan In view of the Certiorari act of
Life Insurance Co., Appellant. 1903, section 14, a review of the
From the Supreme Court, 189

sale for unpaid taxes, and pro-

ceedings upon which it was
8. Edward J. Mann, Respondent, v. based, is limited to three years

Harry J. Max, Impleaded, &c., from the date of sale. Sutton v.
Appellant. From the Hudson Maurice River,

County Circuit Court, 191

9. William A. Fagan. Respondent,

v. Central Railroad Co. of New
Jersey, Appellant. From the 1. An affidavit annexed to a chattel
Monmouth County Circuit mortgage in these words: “Don-

203 ald C. Taggart, the mortgagee in

the foregoing mortgage named.
10. Charles Gillard, Respondent, v. being duly sworn, on his oath,

Manufacturers, &c., Insurance says that the true consideration
Co., Appellant. From the Su- of said mortgage is as follows,
preme Court, 92 N. J. L. 146. viz.: Money loaned to the said

220 Frederick S. Taggart on Novem-

ber 1st, 1916, evidenced by a cer-
11. Deborah O. Anderson, Appel- tain promissory note made by

lant, v. Ida E. Searles et al., him to me, dated November 1st.
Executors. &c. Respondents. 1916, and due in one year, with
From the Supreme Court, 227 interest at six per cent. per an-

num, interest on which has been
12. State of New Jersey. Defend- paid to May 1st, 1917, and depo-

ant in Error, v. John H. Young, nent further says that there is
Plaintiff in Error. From the Su- due on said mortgage the sum of
preme Court,

396 three thousand dollars besides

lawful interest thereon from the
13. Addison Ely. Respondent, v. first day of May, nineteen hun-

Rudolph M. Hertshorn et al., dred and eighteen," read to-
Appellants. From the Supreme gether, with the recitals in the

421 body of the mortgage, is a suffi-

cient compliance with the terms
14. Rachel A. Lynch, Executrix. of the statute. Comp. Stat., p.

&c.Appellant. v. Commercial 463, I 4; Pamph. L. 1902. p.
Casualty Insurance Co., Re- 487, 1 4. Shupe v. Taggart, 123

Civil Service.


2. The affidavit and the recitals in an agreement to divide it equally

the body of the mortgage should between the conspirators, but he
be read together to ascertain falsely represented to them that
whether there is a sufficient com- he obtained only $20,000, which
pliance with the terms of the was divided. defendant getting a

Ib. share. Subsequently, defendant

ascertaining that he had been de-
3. The affidavit and the recitals in frauded by his co-conspirator,

the mortgage must show how the demanded and was paid a share
relation of creditor and debtor of the residue of the money ex-
arose between the mortgagor and torted. The first division was
mortgagee, not merely what evi- more than two years prior: to
dence has been given of the debt. the finding of the indictment, but
but what is the price of the debt, the last was within the statutory
the cause of the indebtedness, limitation. Held, that the last
how the debt came into existence, division was a continuance of
as a loan of money, and the like. the conspiracy and that the origi-

Ib. nal conspiracy to cheat and de-

defraud a person and divide the
4. In the absence of fraud, where proceeds was not completed until

there is an honest and substan- after the contemplated division
tial compliance with the statute, of the proceeds was finally con-
the mortgage will not be open to cluded, and if there was a di-
attack of other creditors, merely vision within two years, that be-
because the affidavit is inartifi- ing the statutory limitation, be-
cally drawn.

Ib. fore the indictment was found,

the statute was not a bar be-
cause the crime was not


cluded by the limitation until

two years after the last overt act
Under the seventh section of the in furtherance of the corrupt

District Court act (Comp. Stat., agreement. State v. Gregory.
p. 1955) providing for the ar-

pointment of a clerk to said
court, the clerk so appointed

serves without any fixed tenure

1. B. R. entered into a contract
of office, and is therefore subject

with the freeholders of Atlantic
to the provisions of the Civil

to build a road. It was finished
Service act, and is removable
only in accordance with the pro-

and accepted, subject to B. R.'s
visions of that legislation.

obligation to maintain and repair

it for one year thereafter, to se-
son v. District Court, 103

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
The defendant was indicted and surety, entered into a bond to the

convicted of a conspiracy to plaintiff, M. W. N., in the penal
cheat and defraud. One of the sum of $10.000, with condition
conspirators, by a false represen- that if the principal, J. B. R..
tation, obtained, from the victim should repair all defects in the
of the conspirators. $25,000 upon roadway arising from defective

« PreviousContinue »