*

*

*

*

*

*

to and directly affects all classes; they gard to the market value of the land will bear with equanimity high taxation varied, as was to be expected. The witfor any reasonable governmental pur-nesses for the appellant placed the value pose; they will not submit to unjust tax- at from $50,000 to $100,000. Those for ation for any purpose. The the appellee placed it at from $100,000 moment taxes within the territorial lim- to $135,000. The court believes that the its of a county are not uniform on the figure fixed by him of $100,000, which same class of subjects, the non-uniform- was that given by the assessor himself, ity results in injustice to the taxpayer is a substantially correct one. whose valuation is placed above that of As regards the ratio of assessment, his neighbor. His one and the evidence places it at from 30 to 60 only remedy against unjust and discrim- per cent, and we believe that the figure inating taxation is the one pointed out of 50 per cent is also a fair one. by the acts of assembly (1889 and June these figures and from the rule that uni26, 1901, P. L. 601) referred to. And formity of assessment is the controlling we must say that the legislature, in view element, and not the market value, we of the absolute necessity of prompt pay- feel that the assessment of the appelment, as well as the dissatisfaction and irritation caused by want of uniformity. was moved to make the remedy as ample as possible by allowance of these appeals."

From

lant's property should be reduced from $100,000 to $50,000.

And now, Oct. 11, 1923, the appeal in this case is sustained, and it is ordered and decreed that the assessment of the property of E. Richard Meinig for the

It is apparent, we think, from this, or even apart from it, that any inequality year 1923 shall be reduced from the sum of taxation resulting from an assessment of $100,000 to the sum of $50,000; the in an intermediate year is quite as unjust costs of this appeal to be paid by the and as distressing to the taxpayer as that County of Berks.

which might result from an inequality in

a triennial assessment, and if, as the Su- C. P. of
preme Court said, the legislature was
moved to make the remedy as ample as
possible by allowance of these appeals,
it would be most inconsistent to hold
that, while they were making it as ample
as possible, they, nevertheless, restricted
the remedy to the triennial assessments.
Certainly it cannot be said that that
would be making the remedy as ample
as possible.

Allegheny Co.

Conroy v. Weisbrod

Pleading and practice-Administrator --Action in trespass-Negligence-Act of 1pril 26, 1855, P. L. 309, and Fiduciaries Act of 1917, P. L. 504, Section 35.

An administrator cannot maintain an action in trespass for damages for the death of his decedent by the alleged negligence of de

The act itself does not at any time mention triennial assessments, but makes the act applicable to any future assess- fendant. The Act of April 26, 1855, P. L. 309,

ment; and the act being a remedial one, it should receive a liberal construction, and we feel that it applies to the case in hand. If so, our second conclusion of law necessarily follows from the findings of fact, the learned counsel for the appellee stating in his argument that his view of the law in this regard was the same as that of the learned counsel for the appellant.

An examination of the evidence in this case will show, we think, that there is ample testimony to sustain the court's findings of fact. The testimony in re

is not disturbed by the 35th Section of the Fiduciaries Act of 1917, P. L. 504.

Affidavit of defense raising questions of law.

Percy C. Pachtman, for plaintiff.
Wm. A. Challener, for defendant.

Before Swearingen, Carnahan and
Douglass, JJ.

Swearingen, J., May 27, 1924. This case is before the court upon a question of law raised in the affidavit of defense filed by the defendant. The action is in trespass, and was brought by the administrator of the estate of Nora Conroy, deceased. She was injured on March 12, 1923, by the negligence of the defendant, as was alleged, from which injuries she died shortly afterwards. The question of law is that the plaintiff cannot maintain this action, because the Act of April 26, 1855, P. L. 309, names the persons entitled to recover damages for an injury causing death, and an administrator is not one of those named. This act is still in force, and was not disturbed by the 35th Section of the Fiduciaries Act of 1917, P. L. 504; and if it were, the section is unconstitutional, there being no reference in the title of the Fiduciaries Act to the subject of the Section 35. We think the case is ruled by Strain, Admr., v. Kern, 277 Pa. 209.

And now, to wit, May 27th, 1924, after argument and upon consideration, the question of law raised in the affidavit of defense is sustained; and judgment is hereby entered in favor of the defendant.

Q. S. of

Gill's Petition

Where no order was made by the court des

ignating a depository in which the clerk shall deposit the moneys deposited with him and the clerk placed the same in a bank approved by the court, and said bank failed, the clerk was ordered to pay the amount he had received, less his commissions, and without interest.

other than a national bank or trust company

In the matter of the petition of John Gill, in the Court of Quarter Session of York County, Pa., for an order on Purd R. Smith, former clerk of the courts, to pay over money deposited at the time the petitioner became bail on the recognizances in Commonwealth v. William P. Sprenkle, M. W. Wallace, Charles Shultz and Eugene Onney, No. 27, August Sessions, 1922. Petition allowed.

Harvey A. Gross, for petition.
James G. Glessner, contra.

Ross, J., December 29th, 1924.-On the 15th day of September, 1924, a petition was presented to this court by John Gill, representing that:

"On August 28, A. D. 1922, a true bill York Co. of indictment was found by the grand jury in the court of quarter sessions of the peace of said county to No. 27, August Sessions, 1922, wherein William T. Sprenkle, M. W. Wallace, Charles Shultz and Eugene Onney were jointly charged with assault and battery, aggravated assault and battery and felonious assault."

Cash bail-Act of May 12, 1921, P. L. 548-Cash deposited in support of bail

on

recognizances-Liability of cash "On August 31, 1922, the above case was continued, with the consent of said for payment of costs imposed on defendcourt, to October sessions of said court." ant-Failure of court to designate de-and that "by reason of the continuance

pository for cash - Interest.

Where one, who was about to become bail for several persons under indictment, with approval of the court, deposited with the

clerk of the court a sum of money equal to

of said case, the said court required the said M. W. Wallace, Charles Shultz and Eugene Onney, defendants, to enter into a recognizance in the sum of five hundred ($500) dollars each for their ap

the amount of the several recognizances pearance at said October sessions of

upon which he became bail, because he was| court."
not a resident of the country in which the
recognizances were entered and therefore,
without the deposit was not acceptable as
bail, he was entitled to have the money so
deposited, less the clerk's commission, repaid
to him, notwithstanding that one of the de-

tence.

fendants was convicted and sentenced to pay costs and failed to comply with the sen-i In the case mentioned, the money was paid not in lieu of surety but as additional sup

port of the person who became the

recognizances; it was not the property of the defendant sentenced to pay costs, and,

"In open court on September 2, 1922, the said M. W. Wallace, Charles Shultz and Eugene Onney, being personally present in court, offered to enter into the recognizances aforesaid, as required by said court, and offered as surety on each recognizance your petitioner (John Gill), who, being a non-resident of said York County, was not accepted by said court, whereupon your petitioner offered to said court, at bar in open court, to deposit five hundred ($500.00) dollars each, as

with the clerk of said court the sum of fifteen hundred ($1500) dollars, in current funds of the United States, as additional cash bail if said court would accept your petitioner as surety on the recognizance of each of said three defendants in the aforesaid sum of five hundred dollars; whereupon your petitioner was accepted as surety on the bonds of said three defendants, and your petitioner deposited with Purd R. Smith, then clerk of said court, the sum of fifteen hundred $(1500) dollars in current funds of the United States."

*

*

*

required by said court, with your petitioner's signature as surety thereon."

"On January 1, 1923, the prosecution aforesaid, with the consent of said court, was again continued to April sessions, 1923, then and there being held on the third Monday of April, being the 16th day of April, A. D. 1923, and the three defendants aforesaid were again required to renew their aforesaid recognizances for their appearances at said April term of court."

"Your petitioner was again permitted by said court to become surety on the

"On September 2, 1922, in accordance several recognizances of said three dewith said arrangement as made at bar in | fendants in the same amount as had been open court your petitioner did previously required for their appearance sign his name to and become surety on at the April sessions of court, and the the recognizance of said M. W. Wallace, moneys aforesaid deposited by your petithe same being found in Recognizance tioner were permitted to remain with the Book No. 24, page 334; and did sign his clerk of said court as additional security name to and become surety on the re-on said recognizances." cognizance of said Charles Shultz, the same being found in Recognizance Book No. 24, page 335; and did sign his name to and become surety on the recognizance of said Eugene Onney, the same being page 337. Said Recognizance Book being found among the records in the of-ture as surety thereon."

fice of the clerk of the courts of said found in Recognizance Book No. 24, county."

"On October 27, A. D. 1922, the prosecution aforesaid, with the consent of said court, was again continued to January sessions, 1923, then and there being held on the first Monday of January, being the first day of January, A. D. 1923, and the three defendants aforesaid were again required to renew their aforesaid recognizances for their appearances at said January term of court."

"Your petitioner was again permitted by said court to become surety on the several recognizances of said three defendants in the same amount as had been previously required for their appearance at the January sessions of court, and the moneys aforesaid deposited by your petitioner were permitted to remain with the clerk of said court as additional security an said recognizances."

"The recognizances entered by said three defendants are found in Recognizance Book No. 24 aforesaid, on pages 373, 374 and 375, and are in the sum of

"The recognizances entered by the said three defendants are found in Recognizance Book No. 25, on pages 37, 38 and 30, and are in the sum of five hundred ($500.00) dollars each, as required by said court, with your petitioner's signa

"On April 18, 1923, the prosecution aforesaid, with the consent of said court, was again continued to August sessions, 1923, then and there being held on the fourth Monday of August, being the 27th day of August, A. D. 1923, and the three defendants aforesaid were again required to renew their aforesaid recognizances for their appearances at said August term of court."

"Your petitioner was again permitted by said court to become surety on the several recognizances of said three defendants in the same amount as had been previously required, for their appearance at the August sessions of court, and the moneys aforesaid deposited by your petitioner were permitted to remain with the clerk of said court as additional security on said recognizances."

"The recognizances entered by the said three defendants are found in Recognizance Book No. 25, on pages 101, 102 and 103, and are in the sum of five hundred ($500.00) dollars each, as required by said court, with your petitioner's signature as surety thereon."

"On August 27, A. D. 1923, said pro-ed in the petition; that the Act of May secution was tried in said court, and the 12, 1921, P. L. 548, regarded the moneys said William T. Sprenkel, M. W. Wal- deposited with the said clerk of the

as surety on said several recognizances." | remained in said bank until the said bank The petition further avers "that neither was declared insolvent and was liquidatnizances, was a non-resident of the coun- bank not authorized by law, namely a ty. The terms of the recognizances trust company or national bank. This is clearly show that the duty of the surety deemed by the court now sitting as an on the recognizances was to produce the inadvertence on the part of the clerk, body or the person of the party charged probably caused, under stress of business, with the crime, who was directed to give by the court neglecting, at the time the

it was not deposited in place or stead of C. P. of

proper surety, but to support the proper American Insulation Co., Inc. v. Best

surety on the recognizance. That recognizance was a recognizance to appear and answer to the charge preferred, and nothing more. The defendant was not the owner of the money deposited, but it was made plain in court that the money deposited was the money of the surety on the recognizance, because he was not a should be awarded, of its own motion, encitizen in the district judicially super-tered a rule to show cause why a new trial vised by this court.