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-
« PreviousContinue » |