Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County.

Action by the Commonwealth against the Consolidated Dressed Beef Company. From judgment for plaintiff on case stated to determine defendant's liability to pay mercantile license tax, defendant appeals. Affirmed. See, also, 242 Pa. 163, 88 Atl. 975.

Appeal from assessment of the board of mercantile appraisers for the county of Philadelphia. From the record it appeared that case was heard in the court below on a case stated, which was as follows:

"1. It is hereby agreed by the parties to the above proceeding that the following case be stated for the judgment of the court:

"2. The Consolidated Dressed Beef Company is a corporation of Pennsylvania, organized for the purpose, and engaged exclusively, in the city of Philadelphia, in the business of the purchase of cattle, the slaughtering of the same and the sale of the beef and other products obtained from the animals slaughtered. The cattle are slaughtered and dressed by the defendant at the abattoir in the West Philadelphia stockyards. All sales made by the defendant are sales of the beef and other products of the cattle slaughtered by the defendant. All sales made by the defendant are made at the place where the defendant slaughters the cattle. The defendant does not keep a store or warehouse for the purpose of vending and disposing of any goods, wares, or merchandise. All sales made by the defendant are made only to dealers in or vendors of beef or other products obtained from the animals slaughtered. The sales of the defendant during the year 1913 amounted to $4,334,500. The board of mercantile appraisers for the county of Philadelphia assessed against the defendant, as a wholesale vendor for the year 1913, a mercantile license tax of $2,167.45, from which assessment the defendant appealed to the said board on May 8, 1913, the day assigned by the board to hear the appeal. The appeal was dismissed by the said board and the defendant on May 9, 1913, appealed to this court.

"3. If, under the above facts, the defendant is liable to the said mercantile license tax, judgment shall be entered for the commonwealth of Pennsylvania for $2,167.45; otherwise judgment shall be entered for the defendant.

"4. Each party shall have the right to appeal from the judgment entered by the court."

The court entered judgment for the plaintiff for $2,167.45. Defendant appealed.

Argued before FELL, C. J., and MESTREZAT, POTTER, ELKIN, and MOSCHZISKER, JJ.

Theodore F. Jenkins, of Philadelphia, for appellant. John T. Murphy, of Philadelphia, for the Commonwealth.

POTTER, J. This is an appeal from the assessment of a mercantile license tax. From the facts as set forth in the case stated for the decision of the court below, it appears that the defendant is engaged in the business of purchasing cattle, slaughtering them, and selling the beef and other products obtained from the slaughtered animals. The sales are made only to dealers in and vendors of the beef and other products. The court below held that under the facts as stated, the defendant was properly assessed for a mercantile license tax, and is liable for the payment thereof, and judgment was therefore entered against it accordingly.

[1, 2] From our review of the record, we are unable to see how the court below could have reached any other conclusion than that defendant is a dealer in and vendor of goods and merchandise. It buys cattle, which are for it the raw material, and it converts that material into forms and sizes suitable for the market which it supplies, and it then sells the material, as merchandise, to others who vend and deal at retail in the same products. It buys material, to sell again, and therefore comes within the proper definition of a “dealer," as the term is used in the act of May 2, 1899 (P. L. 184), under which the mercantile license tax is imposed. It subjects the material which it buys to certain manipulations, but those are not such as to properly constitute it a manufacturing corporation. This was decided in the case of Com. v. Consolidated Dressed Beef Co., 242 Pa. 163, 88 Atl. 975. Nor does the defendant make sale of that which it raises upon its own premises, as in the case of a farmer who sells his own cattle, raised upon his farm. The defendant carries on a business properly termed as merchandising, and a large one at that. It would be difficult to find a better example of a dealer or vendor of merchandise, upon a large scale. Defendant buys for the sole purpose of selling again that which it has purchased. We think the learned court below was clearly right in holding that the defendant company was liable to assessment as a wholesale vendor of merchandise, and judgment was therefore properly entered against the defendant, upon the case stated.

The assignments of error are overruled, and the judgment is affirmed.

(85 N. J. L. 725)

of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. March 10. 1914.) Appeal from Supreme Court. Charles W. Bowlby was removed from the office of County Superintendent of Weights and Measures by a resolution of the Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Morris. From a judgment of the Supreme Court (83 N. J. Law, 346, 85 Atl. 229) on certiorari, affirming the resolution, he appeals. Affirmed. Wilbur A. Heisley, of Newark, for appellant. George G. Runyon, of Morristown, for respondent. PER CURIAM. The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Trenchard in the Supreme Court.

(86 N. J. L. 680)

DELAWARE RIVER TRANSP. CO v. INHABITANTS OF CITY OF TRENTON. (No. 70.) (Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. July 10, 1914.) Appeal from Supreme Court. Proceeding by the Inhabitants of the City of Trenton against the Delaware River Transportation Company. The proceedings were affirmed by the Supreme Court on certiorari (90 Atl. 5), and the Transportation Company appeals. Affirmed. Peter Backes, of Trenton, and Gilbert Collins, of Jersey City, for appellant. Charles E. Bird, of Trenton, for respondent. PER CURIAM. The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Parker in the Supreme Court.

(86 N. J. L. 679)

DELAWARE RIVER TRANSP. CO. v. INHABITANTS OF CITY OF TRENTON. (No. 71.) (Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. July 10, 1914.) Appeal from Supreme Court. Proceeding by the Inhabitants of the City of Trenton against the Delaware River Transportation Company. The proceedings were affirmed by the Supreme Court on certiorari (90 Atl. 731), and the Transportation Company appeals. Affirmed. Peter Backes, of Trenton, and Gilbert Collins, of Jersey City, for appellant. Charles E. Bird, of Trenton, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Trenchard in the Supreme Court.

DELAWARE RIVER TRANSP. CO. v. INHABITANTS OF CITY OF TRENTON. (No. 72.). Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. July 10, 1914.) Appeal from Supreme Court. Proceeding by the Inhabitants of the City of Trenton against the Delaware River Transportation Company. The proceedings were affirmed by the Supreme Court on certiorari (90 Atl. 731), and the Transportation Company appeals. Affirmed. Peter Backes, of Trenton, and Gilbert Collins, of Jersey City, for appellant. Charles E. Bird, of Trenton, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Trenchard in the Supreme Court.

(86 N. J. L. 356)

FEIGHAN v. SOBERS et al. (No. 82.) (Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. May 8, 1914.) Appeal from Supreme Court. Action by Annie L. Feighan against Jacob Sobers and another. There was a judgment for plaintiff. Defendant named having died, his executor obtained a rule to show cause why the judgment should not be set aside. From a rule absolute to the end that the judgment should be set aside (87 Atl. 636), plaintiff appeals.

GOERZ v. GOERZ. (No. 24.) (Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. May 4, 1914.) Appeal from Court of Chancery. Action between Edward V. Goerz and Mathilda Goerz. From a judgment in favor of the latter, the former appeals. Affirmed. McDermott & Enright, of Jersey City, for appellant. Weller & Lichtenstein, of Hoboken, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Advisory Master Hartshorne.1

(85 N. J. L. 384)

Certi

GONZALES v. MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF CITY OF HOBOKEN et al. (Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. Nov. 17, 1913.), Appeal from Supreme Court. orari by George Gonzales against the Mayor and Council of the City of Hoboken and others to review a resolution passed by the council designating an official newspaper for the city. From a judgment dismissing the writ, prosecutor appeals. Reversed. tor appeals. Reversed. Merritt Lane, of Jersey City, for appellant. John J. Fallon, of Hoboken, for respondents.

PER CURIAM. The questions raised in this case are precisely the same as those existing in the case of Fagan v. Hoboken, 84 N. J. Law, 226, 86 Atl. 1025, and the judgment of the Supreme Court entered in this case will be reversed, and the proceedings and resolutions under review set aside, for the reasons given in that case.

(83 N. J. Eq. 343)

GRAND COURT, FORESTERS OF AMERICA, v. COURT CAVOUR, NO. 133, FORESTERS OF AMERICA, et al. (No. 31.) (Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. May 4, 1914.) Appeal from Court of Chancery. Bill by the Grand Court Foresters of America, State of New Jersey, against Court Cavour, No. 133, Foresters of America, and others. From a decree dismissing the bill (88 Atl. 191), plaintiff appeals. Affirmed. Philip J. Schotland, of Newark, for appellant. Anthony R. Finelli, of Newark, for respondents.

PER CURIAM. The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice Chancellor Stevens.

by Eney Grupelli against Jacob Rosen. From a judgment of the Supreme Court (91 Atl. 1071), affirming a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed. Charles A. Rathbun, of Morristown, for appellant. Willard W. Cutler, of Morristown, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered per curiam in the Supreme Court.

(82 N. J. Eq. 366)

HEATH v. MADDOCK. (Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. Nov. 17, 1913.) Appeal from Prerogative Court. Suit by CarSuit by Carlotta Heath against Frederick R. Maddock for revocation of letters of guardianship. From a decree of the Prerogative Court, reversing a judgment for petitioner (81 N. J. Eq. 470, 86 Atl. 945), petitioner appeals. Affirmed. Edward A. & William T. Day, of Newark, for appellant. Lum, Tamblyn & Colyer, of Newark, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by the ordinary. (86 N. J. L. 357)

HEYMAN V. STOPPER. (Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. May 8, 1914.) Appeal from Supreme Court. Action by Simon Heyman against Charles Stopper. From a judgment (88 Atl. 946), reversing a judgment for plaintiff, he appeals. Affirmed. Affirmed. Jacob L. Newman, of Newark, for appellant. Hugo Woerner, of Newark, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Voorhees in the Supreme Court.

(82 N. J. Eq. 364)

HOLCOMBE et al. v. TRENTON WHITE CITY CO. (Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. Oct. 16, 1913.) Appeal from Court of Chancery. Bill by Alfred G. Holcombe and others against the Trenton White City Company. From a decree of the Court of Chancery, on the application of Charles J. Fury, receiver of defendant, for assessments on capital stock of defendant (80 N. J. Eq. 122, 82 Atl. 618), appeals are taken, one by John S. Broughton, and the other by said Fury. Affirmed. John M. Dickinson, of Trenton, and Gilbert Collins, of Jersey City, for Broughton. Peter Backes, of Trenton, for Fury.

PER CURIAM. The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice Chancellor Walker.

HYAMS v. OLD DOMINION COPPER MINING & SMELTING CO. (Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. June 18, 1914.) Appeal from Court of Chancery. Suit by Godfrey M. Hyams against the Old Dominion Copper Mining & Smelting Company. From a decree for defendant on condition (89 Atl. 37), complainant appeals. Affirmed. Edward M. Colie, of Newark, for appellant. Collina & Corbin, of Jersey City, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice Chancellor Howell.

(82 N. J. Eq. 371)

In re LERCHE'S WILL. (Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. Nov. 17, 1913.) Appeal from Prerogative Court. Petition for the probate of the alleged last will of Elise Lerche, deceased. On appeal from a decree of the prerogative court, affirming a decree of the Hudson county orphans' court admitting the will

to probate on the opinion of the judge of the orphans' court. Affirmed. The opinion of the orphans' court is as follows: "In this matter the court has examined all the testimony and the briefs of counsel, the testimony consisting of some 1200 pages, and the briefs almost as voluminous. The court has given careful consideration to this case, running over a period of several months, and it has come to the following conclusions: First, that the will was executed in due form of law. The execution had incident to it all the requisites of our statute. In fact, I may say that there was no serious contention made in the course of the contest that this was not so. this was not so. Secondly, I find that there is absolutely no evidence of undue influence of any sort, kind or character in the case. There is no testimony on the part of any of the witnesses in the case that would indicate that the parties who were responsible, either directly or indirectly, for the drawing of this will, exercised any improper or undue influence upon the testaThe will was the product, undoubtedly, under the evidence, of her own mind. The only question that required any serious consideration by the court was the proposition that the testatrix was not of such mentality as the law requires in the making of a will. The court will find, as a matter of fact, that at the time of the making of this will the testatrix, Elise Lerche, was of sound and disposing mind and memory, and was in such mental condition that she was thoroughly and completely competent to make a will, applying the legal principles recognized in this state to such a situation. The court, therefore, has determined that the will was the valid will of Elise Lerche and is entitled to probate as such. The court briefly states its findings in the matter as the result of an analysis of all the testimony and a consideration of all the arguments advanced. If counsel desire, the court will express its opinion more at length. The necessity of this, however, does not seem at present apparent, as the issues involved are really issues of fact. A copy of this memorandum may be forwarded to all counsel who appeared in the case. The court will hear counsel on Wednesday morning of next week in the mat99 Weller ter of counsel fees and allowances.' & Lichtenstein and Frederick K. Hopkins, all of Hoboken, and Sommer, Colby & Whiting, of Newark, for appellants. John J. Fallon, of Hoboken, Lindabury, Depue & Faulks, of Newark, Condict, Condict & Boardman and Robert S. Hudspeth, all of Jersey City, Daniel H. Applegate, of Red Bank, and Charles D. Thompson, of Jersey City, for appellees.

PER CURIAM. The decree of the prerogative court appealed from will be affirmed, for the reason stated in the opinion_filed in the Hudson county orphans' court by Judge Carey. VREDENBURGH, J., dissents.

(82 N. J. Eq. 367) · MCGRATH v. NORCROSS. (Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. Nov. 17, 1913.) Appeal from Court of Chancery. Suit by Anna R. McGrath against William F. Norcross to quiet title. An issue at law was framed and tried in the Supreme Court, and a verdict rendered for defendant, and from an order of the Vice Chancellor granting complainant a new trial (78 N. J. Eq. 120, 79 Atl. 85), defendant appeals. Affirmed on the opinion of the Vice Chancellor. Thomas E. French, of Camden, for appellant. Collins & Corbin, of Jersey City, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. The order appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice Chancellor Leaming.

(85 N. J. L. 372)

MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OF JERSEY CITY v. MONTVILLE TP. et al. (Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. Nov. 17,