1. When a promissory note com-
plete and regular upon its face
was taken by the plaintiff, be-
fore maturity, in good faith and
for value, and without notice of
any infirmity in the note or de-
fect in the tiltle of the person
negotiating it, the plaintiff is a
holder in due course. Smith,
Kline & French Co. v. Freeman,
45

2. When a promissory note has
been materially altered and is in
the hands of a holder in due
course, not a party to the altera-
tion, he may enforce payment
thereof according to its original
tenor.

Ib.

Negligence.

must appear that the passenger
was, by the act of the defend-
ant, put to an election between
alternative dangers, or that
something was done or said, or
that some direction was given
to the passenger by those in
charge of the train, or some
situation created which inter-
fered to some extent with his
free agency, and was calculated
to divert his attention from the
danger, and create a confidence
that the attempt could be made
in safety. Zelman v. Penna. R.
R. Co.,
57

2. A passenger upon a railroad, op-

erated pursuant to the General
Railroad act, who, as the train
slowed down as it came into the
station, and as the trainman
called out "Park Place, last
stop, Newark," arose, walked to
the front of the car, following
a passenger ahead of her, and
finding the door open stepped off
the moving train in the belief
that it had stopped, cannot re-
cover damages from the carrier
for injuries sustained, by reason
of the train being still in mo-
tion, since no act or direction of
those having charge of the train
interfered with her free agency
or in any manner diverted her
attention.
Ib.

3. Where from the plaintiff's case
it appeared that while driving
an automobile on a public high-
way, he stopped his car about
twenty feet away from defend-
ant's tracks, and then saw an
engine standing about twenty
feet from the crossing; that no
bell of any kind or whistle was
sounded, and he then proceeded
to cross; and, before he suc-
ceeded in crossing, the engine
which had been standing started
to move and struck his machine,
injuring it and the plaintiff him-
self-Held, that a contradiction
of such testimony presented an
issue of fact for the jury. both
on the question of defendant's

Notice.

11. The proprietor of a bath estab-|
lishment owes to his customers
a duty to exercise reasonable
care to maintain the premises in
a safe condition. His duty to
his patrons is satisfied when he
uses reasonable care to maintain
the premises in a safe condition,
for their proper use by the pat-
rons. He does not insure the
safety of his patrons against ac-
cident. The maxim res ipsa lo-
quitur has no application to the
facts of this case. The condition
that produced the accident must
have been in fact brought to the
previous notice of the proprietor
or failing in proof of such actual
notice, that the condition had
existed for such a space of time
as would have afforded the pro-
prietor sufficient opportunity to
make proper inspection as to the
safety of the place. Following
Schnatterer v. Bamberger Co.,
81 N. J. L. 558. Rom v. Huber,
360

See also LANDLORD AND TENANT,
1.

Pensions.

certificate, where a forfeiture by
reason of the non-payment of
the assessment, within the thirty
days, that in the absence of a
prescribed method of service in
the constitution or by-laws, the
notice must be actually or per-
sonally served upon the member,
as a condition precedent to the
forfeiture of his personal and
property rights. Autrim v. Tele-
graphers' Ben. Ass'n,
213

NUISANCE.

See NEGLIGENCE, 8.

OFFICERS.

1. Certiorari, and not quo war-
ranto, is the appropriate remedy
to remove an alleged illegal reso-
lution which impedes one who is
in possession of an office in the
performance of the duties
thereof. Hartley v. Board of
Elections,
313

1, 2, 3.

NONSUIT.

See DISTRICT COURTS, 1.
TRIAL, 25.

NOTICE.

1. Where liability is made to de-
pend at all upon notice to a
party, the adversary party must
establish the notice before the
other is called upon to contest
it. Garland v. Furst Store, 127

in which the general body politic
is directly concerned, a clerical
oversight, omission or dereliction
of a board or body charged with
the performance of a clerical
administrative duty, will not
vitiate the result so as to com-
promise the public right. Ib.

3. The tenure of office of a district
election officer appointed under
the provision of the supplement
of 1918 of the Election act
(Pamph. L., p. 471), is for the
term of two years.
Ib.

See also CIVIL SERVICE.

PENSIONS.

ure to pay the same within the
thirty days a forfeiture would
result. Held, upon a claim for
the amount due upon a death.

lice officer or policeman who has
died or shall die as the direct
result of any injury received, or
sickness or illness contracted or

reasoning which induced the
rendering of the judgment under
review. McCarty v. West Ho-
boken,
247

2. Pamph. L. 1916. p. 298, ap-
proved March 17th, 1916, which
is entitled "A supplement to an
act entitled 'An act providing
for the pensioning of police offi-
cers and policemen in certain
municipalities of this state,' ap-
proved March 30th, 1911"
(Pamph. L., p. 104), does not
offend against the constitutional
provisions of article 1, paragraph
19, or article 4, paragraph 7,|
subdivision 4. The city of Ho-
boken having adopted and en-
forced this law and compelled
the husband of plaintiff, who
was a policeman, to contribute
to the fund for a long period of
time, the municipality ought not
to be permitted to retain the
enforced contributions. The
plaintiff is not limited to a pro-
ceeding by mandamus but may
enforce her claim by a common
law action, even after a man-
damus has been refused. Hayes
v. Hoboken,

POLICE.

See PENSIONS, 1, 2.

432

3. The amendment of the Practice
act, approved March 15th, 1916
(Pamph. L., p. 109), which pro-
vides that when causes are sub-
Imitted to the court to be heard
without a jury, any error made
by the court in giving final judg-
ment in the cause shall be sub-
ject to change, modification or
reversal without the grounds of
objection having been specifically
submitted to the court, is con-
stitutional, and permits a review
of any errors of law residing in
the findings of the trial judge;
provided, any such errors shall
be specified in grounds of appeal
filed and served under rule 139
of the Supreme Court (1913).
Pannonia Building and Loan
Ass'n v. West Side Trust Co..
377

See DISTRICT COURTS, 3.

PRACTICE.

1. When on appeal it is found that
the court below reached a right
result, even if upon a wrong rea-
son, the judgment should not be.
disturbed; therefore, errors may
be assigned upon matters in the
records only, and not upon the

were substituted for
writs of error by the Practice
act (1912), Pamph. L., p. 377.
$25; and by rule 77 annexed
to that act, and rule 137 of the
Supreme Court (1913), an ap-
peal may be taken by notice
served on the adverse party and
filed within the time limited for
bringing writs of error (now su-
perseded by appeals in civil
suits). Such an appeal is per-
fected, so as to remove the cause
from the court below to the court
above, by serving a notice on the