of the tort-feasors is responsible only for compensatory damages, and the other for compensatory and punitive damages, there can be a joint verdict only for compensatory damages. The rule is, that only such damages for which they are jointly liable can be recovered from joint tort-feasors, by a joint verdict. Krug v. Pitass, supra; Haines v. Schultz, 50 N. J. L. 481. The judgment of the Hudson Circuit Court is reversed and a venire de novo awarded. CASES AT LAW DETERMINED IN THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY NOVEMBER TERM, 1919. CHARLES IPPOLITO, APPELLANT, v. BOROUGH OF RIDGEFIELD, BERGEN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, RESPONDENT. Argued November 19, 1919-Decided March 8, 1920. 1. In moving for a nonsuit counsel should state specifically the grounds upon which the motion is rested; but the arguments thereon should not be taken down by the stenographer and should not be returned with the record or printed. The trial judge should, however, state his reasons for granting or refusing a nonsuit and they should be taken down and returned with the record, because counsel for the defeated party is entitled to know the reasons upon which the judge's determination is rested, so that he may the better answer them in the court above, in case of appeal, and the appellate court is entitled to be informed of the grounds of the decision which it is required to review. 2. Respondent advertised for proposals for lump sum bids for a sewage disposal plant complete, as per plans and specifications, and also unit price bids for contingent extras, work for which unit prices were not provided to be done for actual cost, plus fifteen per cent. Appellant was the lowest bidder. He was awarded the contract. While he was in the midst of the work, and the foundation which had been called for originally was nearly completed, the borough decided it to be unsafe to bear the burden proposed to be placed on it, and passed a resolution that the conVOL. XCIV. (97) tractor be authorized and required to do certain work for which no unit prices were provided, the total cost of which proved to be far in excess of $500. After this work was practically completed the borough stopped all work and ordered the contractor off the job. Held, that there is nothing in chapter 342, Pamph. L. 1912, p. 593 (which provides that whenever it shall be lawful for a public body to let contracts for doing work or furnishing materials or labor, where the sum to be expended exceeds $500, the action of such public body in entering into any such contract shall be invalid unless there shall first be public advertising for bids and award made to the lowest bidder), which forbids a call for unit prices for contingent extras, and the doing of other work for which unit prices are not provided, for cost, plus fifteen per cent. The insertion of such provisions in a contract is a protective measure to the public in the event of modification of the work occasioned by an unforeseen emergency, or as an incident to the work provided for in the original contract; and the given municipality is always protected, because whether this is so, or whether the extra work is the result of an effort to evade the statute, are questions for the jury. On appeal from the Bergen County Circuit Court. For the appellant, Howe & Davis and Edward M. Colie. For the respondent, William J. Morrison, Jr. The opinion of the court was delivered by WALKER, CHANCELLOR. This appeal brings up for review the action of the Bergen County Circuit Court in granting defendant a nonsuit on counts 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the complaint. At the close of the plaintiff's case counsel for the defendant moved to strike out a large part of the testimony and made what he said would be in effect a motion for a nonsuit. This was addressed to all six of the counts in the complaint. The court overruled the motion as to the first count, and, declining to strike out the testimony, turned the motion. into one for a nonsuit and granted it as to the last five counts. The case was then submitted to the jury on the first count, who returned a verdict for plaintiff. A money judgment was thereupon entered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the sum found due by the jury, with judg ment against the plaintiff on the nonsuit. The plaintiff has appealed to this court from the judgment of nonsuit against him. The colloquy between court and counsel on the motion. to strike out evidence, turned into a motion for nonsuit, is reported verbatim and covers some fifteen printed pages of the state of the case. This is not in accord with approved practice. In moving for a nonsuit, counsel should state specifically the grounds upon which the motion is rested; but the arguments thereon should not be taken down by the stenographer, and should not be returned with the record or printed. Koch v. Costello, 93 N. J. L. 367. The trial judge gave no reasons for his action in granting the nonsuit. This also is not in accord with approved practice. While the arguments of counsel on a motion to nonsuit should not be taken down, the judge's deliverance in granting or refusing it, should be, as counsel for the defeated party is entitled to know the reasons upon which the judge's determination is rested, so that he may the better answer them in the court above, in case of appeal, and, besides, the appellate court is entitled to be informed of the grounds of the decision which it is required to review. The respondent received competitive bids after due advertisement for constructing a sewage disposal plant. The form of proposal required lump sum bids for the disposal plant complete, as per plans and specifications, and also unit price bids for contingent extras, if required in the construction of the plant, work on which no unit prices were bid to be done for actual cost plus fifteen per cent. Appellant bid $10,300 for the sewage disposal plant, complete, unit prices for contingent extras, and work on which no unit prices were bid for cost plus fifteen per cent. His bid was accepted and a contract between him and the borough was executed in accordance therewith. The plans and specifications described the plant as made up of a settling tank of the Imhoff type, supported on a double circle of piles, the inner circle to support the upper section of the tank; sludge drying beds formed of steam cinders compacted by ramming and sealed with clay, and the necessary piping to convey the sewage from |