873 Small, Sanders Engineering Co. v. (Me.) Segusse, Smarak v. (N.. J. Sup.).. Sellers v. Warren (Me.)... Seritini, Lebretto v. (Conn.) Seymour v. Norwalk (Conn.). Shanasy, Miner v. (Vt.). ... Shapiro v. Sampson (Me.). Shaw v. G. B. Beaumont Co. (N. J.). Shaw v. Jackson (Conn.) Shelton Swallow Co., Bundy v. (Vt.) Shiro, Jones v. (Me.) Siegeler v. Neuweiler (N. J.). Simpkins, Banks v. (N. J. Ch.) Simpson v. Vitaphone Co. (N. J. Ch.) Simson v. Klipstein (N. J. Ch.). Slater's Estate, In re (N. J. Prerog.). Slattery v. Slattery (N. J.) Sloan's Estate, In re (Pa.). Small, State v. (N. H.). Smarak v. Segusse (N. J. Sup.). 354 State, Vera Chemical Co. v. (N. H.).... 463 40 State v. Villa (Vt.). 871 Steil Brewing Co. of Baltimore City, 242 Ziehm v. (Md.). .1005 935 767 State v. Von Buren (Del. Gen. Sess.). 577 State v. Whitman (N. J.).... 480 State v. Willoughby (Del. Super.).... 289 State Board of Health, Knoop v. (R. I.) 609 151 State Board of Medical Examiners of New 736 Jersey v. Giedroyc (N. J. Sup.)... ...1041 State Mut. Life Assur. Co. v. Bessett (R. 76 I.) 727 349 Staten v. Central Vermont R. Co. (Vt.).... 97 650 Steelman, Cuskaden v. (N. J. Ch.)..... 261 179 Steer v. Huber (Md.).. ..1052 981 146 983 ...... 906 .. 272 Steinmeyer v. Phenix Cheese Co. (N. J.).. 150 240 Stephens, Churchill v. (N. J.). 657 381 Sterling Leather Works v. Liberty Trust Co. (N. J. Ch.) 841 31 Sterling Leather Works, Young v. (N. J.) 395 36 Stevenson, Herron v. (Pa.). .1049 883 Stewart v. Stewart Drug Co. (Me.) 823 Smeraldo, Corbett v. (N. J. Sup.) 354 Stewart Drug Co., Stewart v. (Me.) 889 Stierle v. Rayner (Conn.).... 823 581 Smith, Baker v. (R. I.) Smith, Clayton v. (Md.) 721 Stockman v. Boston & M. R. R. (Me.)... 560 925 Stone. Jones v. (N. H.). 377 Smith, Di Stephano v. (R. I.). 817 Stoughton v. Woodard (Vt.).. 99 Smith, Lister, Smith & Walsh Co. v. (R. Stout, Appeal of (Pa.) 278 514 Straw, Petition of (N. H.) 628 Smith v. Smith (N. J.). 381 Smith v. Smith (N. J.). .1054 Snyder, Borough of Hollidaysburg v. (Pa.) 168 Society for Establishing Useful Manufactures v. Board of Conservation and Development (N. J.).... Strickler, Commonwealth v. (Pa.) Stuart & Son, Murinelli v. (Me.). Sullivan, Heyer v. (N. J. Ch.) Sullivan v. McCafferty (Me.). 282 824 248 324 .1054 Summit Hill School Directors, In re (Pa.) 278 Sunapi v. Lee (R. I.)...... 961 Society of First Congregational Church of Verona, Young v. (N. J.). 358 Superior Court, J. Samuels & Bro. v. (R. I.) 804 Spear v. Edward Bryant Co. (Me.). .1051 Spence's Estate, In re (Pa.).` 212 Spiese v. Mutual Trust Co. (Pa.). Spiese v. Mutual Trust Co. (Pa.). 119 Superior Realty Co., Burnett v. (N. J.) 831 Sussex Trust Co. v. Bacon (Del. Ch.).... 785 Sussman v. Whiting (N. H.).. 121 Swiller, State v. (N. J.)....... 539 153 Spinney's Adm'x v. O. V. Hooker & Son Springer's Estate, In re (Pa.) Stafford's Estate, In re (Pa.). State v. Albano (Vt.)... State v. Avicolli (Vt.). State v. Bennett (Me.). 53 Taylor, Burris v. (Del. Super.). 284 Terry v. Parsons (Del. Super.). 529 Thompson, In re (Me.). 836 Thompson, Myers v. (Me.). 222 Thompson v. Peppler (N. J.). 333 Thompson's Express & .1037 Whitemore (N. J. Ch.). 974 Thorne, Bean v. (Me.) 984 985 303 776 379 Storage Co. v. 692 881 State v. Bolton (Vt.). 489 Tibbetts, Grossman v. (Me.). 881 State v. Brittell (Vt.). .1027 Tichnor Bros. v. Evans (Vt.). .1031 872 65 Tipper's Estate, In re (N. J. Prerog.). .1040 Title Guarantee & Trust Co. v. Lohrke (N. J. Ch.)..... 897 660 State, D'Amico v. (Del.). 78 Titus, Hyers v. (N. J. Ch.) 250 State v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. (N. J.) 1054 State v. Dorsey (Del. Gen. Sess.) State v. Eaton (Vt.). State v. Faunce (Ñ. J.).. 147 82 .1025 Town Meeting Party Nomination Papers, In re (Pa.)... Towers v. Kensington R. Co. of Montgomery County (Md.).. .1011 910 State v. Fish (N. J.).. State v. Frank (N. J.). 378 Town Meeting Party Nomination Papers, .1054 In re (Pa.). 912 62 970 Town of Boonton v. United Water Supply Co. (N. J. Ch.).... 454 State v. Herbert (N. J. Sup.). State v. Howard (Me.). State v. Hyman (Me.). (Vt.) 353 Town of Cavendish, Town of Mt. Holly v. 743 State v. Koehler (N. J. Sup.).. State v. Lankford (Del. Gen. Sess.) State v. Lichter (Del. Gen. Sess.).. State v. Li Fieri (Del. Gen. Sess.). State v. McCracken (N. J. Sup.). State v. McCurdy (Me.).. 77 231 Town of Mt. Holly v. Cavendish (Vt.). 346 Town of Sutton, Cook & Norton v. (Vt.).. 478 63 Townsend, State v. (Del. Super.).. 529 Township of Clementon, Krammer v. (N. J. Sup.)... 60 60 184 389 72 363 Township of Hamilton v. Mercer County Traction Co. (N. J.). 3 State v. Mack (Vt.).. State v. McLellan (Me.) J.) 58 Township of Millburn, Whittingham v. (N. 778 .1054 State v. Mowser (N. J. Sup.). 363 Township of Millburn, Whittingham v. (N. State, Padley v. (Del.).. 60 State v. Richardson (Del. Gen. Sess.) 82 Township of Springfield, Winegardner v. (Pa.) 134 .1030 Township of Woodbridge, Philadelphia & 160 R. R. Co. v. (N. J.).. 392 State v. Scarlett (N. J.). 162 Township of Zerbe, Trevorton Water Supply Co. v. (Pa.). 328 State v. Swiller (N. J.). 153 Trafford Real Estate Co., Rohrer V. XV 7 Vermeule, Phillips v. (N. J. Ch.) Vermont Box Co. v. Hanks (Vt.). Vermont Fruit Co. v. Wilson (Vt.). Vermont Mut. Fire Ins. Co., Brown v. (Vt.) 695 Winslow v. Anderson (N. H.) 310 ..... 91 .1044 Woodard, Stoughton v. (Vt.) Woods, Noecker v. (Pa.). 99 507 .1042 Verrill v. Androscoggin Electric Co. (Me.) 179 670 709 958 935 Woodsome, Goodrich v. (N. H.). 533 297 Yung v. Roll Stickley & Sons (N. J. Ch.).. 698 Ward's Estate, In re (Conn.). 586 Ward & Westerman Engineering Corp., Wharton v. (N. J. Sup.). 871 Warner v. Eaton (N. H.). Ziehm v. Frank Steil Brewing Co. of Bal535 timore City (Md.).... .1005 Warren, Sellers v. (Me.). 40 Zino, Caccione v. (R. I.).. 35 t THE ATLANTIC REPORTER VOLUME 102 (91 N. J. Law, 97) BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF PUBLIC UTILITY COM'RS et al. (Supreme Court of New Jersey. Oct. 11, 1917.) 1. STATUTES 238 CONSTRUCTION ANCIENT GRANTS. However general the words of an ancient grant may be, it is to be construed by evidence of the manner in which the thing granted has always been possessed and used, under the principle that contemporaneous construction of legislation shall be given effect. 2. CANALS 17. OBLIGATIONS NANCE OF DRAWBRIDGE. MAINTE A toll bridge constructed under Laws 1799, p. 528, which required the bridge company to maintain a section of the bridge as a drawbridge, was condemned in 1875 by the board of chosen freeholders of the county. Prior to that a canal company was incorporated under Laws 1829-30, p. 73, and in constructing its canal used as a part thereof the river flowing under the bridge. After condemnation by the board of chosen freeholders the lessee of the canal was compensated for repairing the draw. Held, that the lessee of the canal company was not, in view of the construction of the parties, required to repair the bridge. 3. BRIDGES 21(2) — REPAIR TION. CONDEMNA As the board of chosen freeholders of a county which condemned the bridge under Act April 4, 1872 (P. L. p. 1162), acquired the title as if they had originally constructed the bridge, they are bound to maintain it in repair. some time in the early part of the last century. This bridge was in existence and operated as a toll bridge at the time and for a considerable time before the Delaware & Raritan Canal Company was incorporated, which was in 1830. By the provisions of the bridge maintain a section of the bridge as a drawact, the bridge company was required to bridge over the channel of the Raritan river. Whether such a drawbridge ever existed, or what part of the river at that time the channel occupied, does not appear. The Delaware & Raritan Canal Company was incorporated under Laws 1829-30, p. 73. The canal was built some time thereafter. When the canal was built it was constructed upon either side of the foot of Albany street and the bridge which commenced there, by using the westerly bank of the river as the westerly bank of the canal, and by constructing cribbing and a towpath on the river for the northerly side of the canal, so that the canal forms a part of what was formerly the river. It does not appear whether or not a draw was constructed in any part of the bridge prior to the construction of the canal. There is no draw in the bridge, however, at any place, except that portion of it which crosses the canal at the foot of Albany street. in the bridge over the canal from the time It does not appear who maintained the draw the year 1875 the board of chosen freeholders of the building of the canal up to 1875. In condemned this toll bridge, acting under the authority of public Laws of 1872, p. 1162, and Public Laws of 1873, p. 448. After this con and maintenance of the bridge. The proof is demnation the county assumed the ownership that repairs have been made to the bridge at George L. Burton, of South River, and times by the Pennsylvania Railroad ComGeorge L. Record, of Jersey City, for prose-pany, and the company claims that the cost cutor. Alan H. Strong, of New Brunswick, of such repairs has been assumed, and paid for Pennsylvania R. Co. Certiorari to Board of Public Utility Com missioners. Petition by the Board of Chosen Freeholders of Middlesex County for writ of certiorari to the Board of Public Utility Commissioners and others to review a determination of the Board. Determination of Board upheld. Argued June term, 1917, before SWAYZE, MINTURN, and KALISCH, JJ. MINTURN, J. By virtue of the provisions of an act of the Legislature found on page 528 of the Laws of 1799, a company under the name of "the proprietors of the New Brunswick Bridge" built a toll bridge over the Raritan river, from the foot of Albany street in the city of New Brunswick to the opposite or northerly side of the said river, by the board of chosen freeholders, but no For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes and the defendants refused to do so. Thereupon the prosecutor filed a petition, with the board of public utility commissioners of the State of New Jersey, setting up the facts and requesting that the board compel the defendants to reconstruct the said draw. This application was denied by the board of public utility commissioners, and thereupon this writ was obtained to review the report and finding of that board. case shows the board of freeholders frequently recognized and assumed, even to the extent of reconstructing the bridge when in their judgment the public exigencies required such reconstruction. Without adverting specifically to the conclusions reached by the board of public utility commissioners, we may remark that they are in accord with the views we have reached, and that the order of that board under review should be affirmed, with costs. (88 N. J. Eq. 331) WORTENDYKE v. RAYOT et al. (No. 32.) (Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. Sept. 13, 1917.) entirety conveyed realty, the conveyance being Where husband and wife as tenants by the held valid as to the wife but fraudulent as to the husband, the only interest subject to execytion is the interest of the husband as a tenant by the entirety, and not an equal undivided half interest. White, J., dissenting. Appeal from Court of Chancery. [1, 2] We think there was no obligation to repair, imposed upon the canal company by its act of incorporation with respect to the bridge in question, or to any part of it, and hence no obligation exists upon the part of its lessee, the Pennsylvania Railroad, with respect to the construction or repair thereof. We think the county, by acquiring the bridge | HUSBAND AND WIFE 14(11)-ESTATE BY by condemnation, assumed the burden of ENTIRETY-EFFECT. maintaining it, and this obligation upon its part is evidenced not only by the continued discharge of that duty by the bridge company, during the period of its ownership, but also by the county since it assumed control in 1875, covering an interval of over 80 years. Were there a doubt regarding the construction of the various provisions of law applicable to the situation, it would be dissipated by this practical and contemporaneous construction given to the legislation by the parties themselves. "Contemporanea expositio est optima et fortissima in lege." 2 Co. Inst. II. The uniform course of modern authorities fully establishes the rule that, however general the words of an ancient grant may be, it is to be construed by evidence of the manner in which the thing granted has always been possessed and used, for so the parties thereto must be supposed to have intended. Weed v. Hornby, 7 East, 199; Rex v. Osborne, 4 East, 327; Keysport Steamboat Co. v. Farmers' Co., 18 Eq. 13; State v. Kelsey, 44 N. J. Law, 1; State v. Wrightson, 56 N. J. Law, 129, 28 Atl. 56, 22 L. R. A. 548; Titus v. P. R. R., 87 N. J. Law, 157, 92 Atl. 944, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 1251. Bill in equity by Raymond P. Wortendyke, trustee in bankruptcy, against Louis Rayot and others. Decree (99 Atl. 917) advised for complainant, and defendants appeal. Decree modified. See, also, 102 Atl. 3. J. Emil Walscheid, of Town of Union, for appellants. Alexander Higgins, of Jersey City, for appellee. KALISCH, J. The complainant, as trustee in bankruptcy, filed his bill in the court of chancery to set aside conveyances made by Louis Rayot in fraud of his creditors. On this appeal we find that it will be only necessary to concern ourselves.with that part of the decree appealed from, wherein it is adjudged that the deed of conveyance made by Louis Rayot and Margaret Rayot, his [3] We find nothing in the subsequent leg-26th day of May, 1913, was, so far as the inwife, to Barney Hermes, bearing date the islation, or proceedings which resulted in the terest of Louis Rayot is concerned in fraud present ownership by the board of chosen of the creditors of the said Louis Rayot, and freeholders, which imposed upon the canal that such interest as now held by the said company or its lessee this obligation of main- Barney Hermes is an equal undivided onetenance and repair. Per contra, the assump-half interest in said lands and premises, and tion of ownership and control by the board of chosen freeholders under the condemnation act of 1872 (P. L. 1163, § 2) vested in that body the title and right of possession for pub-ed, and for nothing holden as against any exlic use, as if the bridge had been erected by the board pursuant to law (1 C. S. 301, § 1). The manifest intent of this legislation was to vest in the board of chosen freeholders the usual incidents, powers, and obligations coincident with title, ownership, and control, among which is the obvious duty of maintenance and repair, an obligation which the that said deed, so far as said equal undivided one-half interest in said lands and premises, be and the same is hereby set aside, annull ecution to be issued under this decree. It appears that prior to the 26th day of May, 1913, Rayot and his wife were the owners of an estate by the entirety. It also appears that at that time Louis Rayot was indebted to Ringger & Co. in about $6,600 and to one Henry in about $200, and had no other property. On the date previously mentioned |