when only one should have been,
namely, that the Supreme Court
erred in giving judgment for the
respondent instead of for the ap-
pellant. Lundy v. Brown & Co.,
adverse party and filing the same
within the time so limited, which
is one year in the class of cases
in which that at bar is one. The
provision is in the conjunctive,
namely, the service and filing of
the notice. The provision is not
that the notice shall be filed im-
mediately after the service or
within any prescribed time
thereafter, except that limited
for the taking of an appeal, so
that, after serving a notice of 11. It is improper to characterize
appeal at an early date after
judgment, the appellant may de-
lay perfecting the appeal, so far
as the notice perfects it, until
the last day on which an appeal
will lie. Prantl v. Junk, 387
10. Where a trial court's findings
of fact are supported by evi-
dence, they will not be disturbed
on appeal.
5. When the Supreme Court sits
as a court of review (on appeal
or on certiorari, &c.), a proper
assignment of error is, that it
erred in giving judgment for the
successful, instead of the unsuc-
alleged error as "flagrant" or
"manifest" eror. Legal error is
sufficient to overturn a judg-
ment. State v. Samaha,
12. A party to an action has no
right to have the court charge
something which he deems to be
important to be shown, unless
it is legally essential, either for
or against him.
Ib.
cessful, party, or that it so erred See also APPEAL AND ERRor, 2, 4,
for one or more of the assign-
ments of error or causes for re-
versal (grounds of appeal in
sundry civil cases. reasons in
certiorari cases) filed in that
court and brought up with the
record. State v. Verona, 389
6. A court of review will hear and
decide a question which goes to
the jurisdiction of the subject-
matter, or involves public policy,
although not raised in the court
below.
DISTRICT COURTS, 1, 2.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 6.
ERROR, 1.
TRIAL, 4, 5, 11.
PRINCIPAL AND SURETY.
See CONTRACTS, 1.
PROBABLE CAUSE.
Ib. See MALICIOUS PROSECUTION,
1. Where a public utility company
increases its rates, to take effect
on a fixed date, and the board of
public utility commissioners, on
hearing, modifies the rates with-
out suspending them by any
order, an order affirming the
alleged pollution of a flowing stream, the plaintiff set out in its complaint that an incorporated city had the legal right to take water from the stream and furnish it to its citizens; that plaintiff operated a manufacturing plant in the city requiring a large quantity of water which the city furnished; that defendant, a riparian owner above the intake of the city, emptied into the stream refuse from its factory, which corrupted the stream so that the water supplied by the city was filled with polluted matter injurious to the chemical products of the plaintiff, resulting in serious damage to it. Held, that the complaint did not set out a cause of action in favor of the plaintiff, a non-riparian owner, against the defendant for the alleged pollution. Egyptian Lacquer Mfg. Co. v. Chemical Co., 305
1. The Bulk Sales act (Pamph. L. 1915, p. 377) is not applicable to a case where the whole or a large part of a stock of merchandise is sold at public auction sale. Schwartz Realty Co.,
2. Where goods have been delivered to the buyer and the buyer fails to return or to offer to return the goods to the seller, in substantially as good condition as they were in at the time the property was transferred to the buyer, the buyer cannot rescind the sale. Hirsch v. Verschuur, 277
See ELECTIONS, 3.
LOCAL OPTION, 3.
Comp. Stat., p. 2957, § 6, 325 Police Courts and Magistrates.
Pamph. L. 1911, p. 104,
Pamph. L. 1916, p. 141,
Pamph. L. 1917, p. 55,
Pamph. L. 1918, p. 478, 348 State Home for Girls.
Pamph. L. 1918, p. 901, 296||
tion 43 of the General Tax act
of 1903 (Comp. Stat., p. 5126),
taxes in arrears bear interest at
seven per cent. per annum, from
December 20th of the year of
the levy down to the time of
payment, unless the governing
body of the taxing district has
fixed a higher rate (not exceed-
ing twelve per cent.), and where
no higher rate was fixed, an
owner of lands, bought about
1916, who, in 1917, paid the col-
lector the principal of the taxes
assessed against it for the years
1903 to 1912, inclusive, together
with interest thereon at seven
per cent. from December 20th of
the year of levy down to the
date of payment, is entitled to
have such taxes canceled. Le-
high Valley, &c., Co. v. Jersey
City,
284
2. Bonds which are not expressly
exempted by the Tax act
(Pamph. L. 1918, p. 847), nor
excluded from its operation, and
which are physically located in
New Jersey and are a part of
the unsettled estate of a dece-
dent, are taxable at their true
value in the taxing district in
New Jersey wherein the dece-
dent resided at the time of his
death, even though one of the
two executors and trustees of
the decedent is a non-resident
of New Jersey. Yardley v. Es-
sex County Tax Board, 290
3. The illegal excess of local tax
rate that was adjudged in the
case of Garrison v. Jersey City,
92 N. J. L. 624, held, to affect
the state tax rates on main stem
and second-class railroad prop-
erty imposed during the year
1918 so as to require correspond-
ing revision of those rates. Di-
rector General v. State Board
Taxes,
294
1. Leaving out of consideration the 4. Property acquired by the Pas-
Tax act of 1918, page 847
(which has no application to
the present case), under sec-
saic valley sewerage commission-
ers for the purpose of building
an intercepting sewer in accord-
|