"{\"id\": \"238721\", \"name\": \"LONG DOCK COMPANY, APPELLANT, v. STATE BOARD OF TAXES AND ASSESSMENT, ETC., RESPONDENT\", \"name_abbreviation\": \"Long Dock Co. v. State Board of Taxes & Assessment\", \"decision_date\": \"1917-05-24\", \"docket_number\": \"\", \"first_page\": \"701\", \"last_page\": \"701\", \"citations\": \"90 N.J.L. 701\", \"volume\": \"90\", \"reporter\": \"New Jersey Law Reports\", \"court\": \"New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals\", \"jurisdiction\": \"New Jersey\", \"last_updated\": \"2021-08-10T20:01:02.474624+00:00\", \"provenance\": \"CAP\", \"judges\": \"\", \"parties\": \"LONG DOCK COMPANY, APPELLANT, v. STATE BOARD OF TAXES AND ASSESSMENT, ETC., RESPONDENT.\", \"head_matter\": \"LONG DOCK COMPANY, APPELLANT, v. STATE BOARD OF TAXES AND ASSESSMENT, ETC., RESPONDENT.\\nArgued March 13, 1917\\nDecided May 24, 1917.\\nOn appeal from the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported in 89 N. J. L. 1.08.\\n(In re reassessments on second-class property for 1911.)\\nFor the appellant, Collins & Corbin.\\nFor the respondent, John W. Wescott, attorney-general, John Bentley and John B. Hardin.\", \"word_count\": \"151\", \"char_count\": \"945\", \"text\": \"Per Curiam.\\nLegal questions were first dealt with in the opinion of Mr. Justice Parker in the court below, so as to lay a foundation for the consideration of the facts, and those questions were, in our opinion, rightly decided. As there was evidence to support the finding of facts made by the Supreme Court, that finding is not reviewahle-in this court.\\nThe judgment under review will be affirmed.\\nFor affirmance\\u2014The Chancellor, Garrison, Swayze, Trenchard, Bergen, Black, White, Heppbniteimer, Williams, Taylor, Gardner, JJ. 11.\\nFor reversal\\u2014Hone.\"}"