« ПредишнаНапред »
“C. The interest of the remaining Two While it is true we are taxed in life and hundred dollars ($200,) at five per cent., taxed in death, and from the cradle to the to be paid each and every year to the grave are taxed, on all we make or save, minister in charge of the Methodist Epis- we believe a man in life may honestly and copal Church in Churchtown for preach- without being chargable with an intent to ing the gospel.”
defraud the Commonwealth or evade the The testator in his life-time purchased collateral inheritance laws, place in trust a lot in the above-mentioned cemetery, by will or charge upon his real estate dewhere his body now lies buried, which vised to collateral heirs a sum of money by another clause of his will he provided the interest of which shall be sufficient should be enclosed with posts and rail- for and annually applied to the purpose ing. He left a farm at 107 acres and 26 of dressing, caring for, and keeping his perches of land in Caernarvon township, own grave and his own burial lot in good on which he resided when his will was
order and condition, and that such sum, made and at the time of his death. This so set apart or charged, is exempt from farm has since his death been sold by his such tax. executors under the direction of his said With reference to the other four hunwill, subject to the above charge.
dred dollars mentioned it the case stated,
we are of opinion that under the Acts of The questions submitted to the Court for decision are :
Assembly as found on our statute books,
and the decisions of our supreme Court Is the said legacy of five hundred dollars, or any part thereof, subject to collat- with reference to collateral inheritance
tax in this Commonwealth, said sum is eral inheritance tax, and if subject to it,
subject to this tax, and that the tax must who is liable to pay the same?
be deducted from and paid out of said Is it to be deducted from the principal sum, and the charge on the farm to be money so directed to be charged on said
real estate, the testator having made no five per cent. less ? Is it to be paid out of the accruing interest; or, is it to be provision for its payment out of any
other fund, or out of the residue of his paid out of the residue of the estate of
estate. testator. If the tax is to be deducted from the
We, therefore, in accordance with the principal sum, or to be paid out of the ac. requirement of the case stated, direct cruiug interest, then judgment to be en
judgnient to be entered for the plaintiffs tered for plaintiffs for one dollar, and if it for the sum of one dollar. is to be paid out of the residue of the es- Judgment accordingly. tate, the judgment to be entered for defendants for one dollar.
Will-Construction of-Life EstateJune 22, 1883, LIVINGSTON, P. J.-Is "his entire estate, real, personal, and mix
A testator gave, devised and bequeathed the legacy in this case, or any part of it, ed, unto his wife Virginia, to be used and subject to the payment of collateral inheri- enjoyed by her as long as she lived," and tance tax, and if so, how and by whom is ordered and directed that after her death, the tax to be paid ? appear to be the ques. verted into cash and be paid to Pater Ig:
“whatever may be left should be contions to be decided by the Court.
natius Sagerer in trust, etc.” The wife The one hundred dollars of the five sold under articles of agreement the real hundred dollars mentioned in the case
estate of decedent to F. Held, that the stated, the interest of which is to be ap
wife had but a life estate in the real esplied to dressing and keeping his grave ple to the purchaser.— Waldhoeffer v.
tate, and could not give a title in fee simand burial lot in order, is not in our judg- Falk, (Lancaster C. P.) 1 Lancaster Law ment subject to collateral inheritance tax. Review 38.
YORK LEGAL RECORD. He referred to his early acquaintance
with the deceased, having been his school THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1884.
teacher at one time. Later, he occupied the
office with the deceased, Andrew C. Deveney.
and during that time learned to appre
ciate his sterling virtues. He spoke of his Andrew Caslow Deveney was born in
industry and power to comprehend the Springfield township, York county, in intricacies of the law, and paid a glowing 1853, and was in his 31st year at the time
tribute to his memory, and ask that the of his death. His father was Levi Deve
court adjourn. ney, and one of his brothers is Hon. J. C.
The motion was seconded by A. N. Deveney, a member of the Legislature Green, Esq., who spoke of the deceased from this county. He taught several
as a young man of fine abilities and unterms in the public schools of the county
questioned integrity. and finally registered as a law student un
Court then adjourned until nine o'clock der the late W. H. Kain, Esq., who was
this morning the County Superintendent. He spent
Immediately upon the adjournment of one term in the Law Department of the
court a meeting of the bar was held in Pennsylvania University at Philadelphia the court room. and after passing a very creditable exami
The meeting was organized by the senation, was admitted to the Bar on June lection of Hon. Judge Gibson as presi24, 1878.
dent, and S. C. Frey, Esq., as secretary. Mr. Deveney was a candidate for the
Judge Gibson paid a handsome tribute nomination as Clerk to the Commission
to the memory of the deceased, referring er on the Democratic ticket in 1879, and
to his devotion to the interests of his last year was a candidate for the District
clients, and his endearing qualities as a Attorneyship nomination on the same ticket, but failed both times to secure the
On motion of G. W. Heiges, Esq., the necessary number of votes, although he
court appointed a committee of five to had many warm friends in the conven
draft the ual resolutions of respect to tion.
the memory of the deceased. G. W. Mr. Deveney seemed to have inherited Heiges, Frank Geise, A. N. Green, J. W. consumption, and had several severe at
Heller and W. A. Miller, Esqs., were actacks during the past six years, each of
cordingly appointed as such committee. which left him the less able to resist the
They reported the following resolutions, subsequent stroke. The attack from which
which were unanimously adopted : he finally died confined him to his house
WHEREAS, Death has again entered the in the beginning of the present winter, ranks of the York Bar, and removed from and grew more violent until it ended in
our number A. C. Deveney, therefore, his death.
Resolved, That by the death of A. C. Mr. Deveney was a young man of good Deveney, the bar has lost a bright memqualities, and made many friends. He ber, painstaking in his investigations of was acquiring a good practice, until his legal questions, and who gave promise,
before he was disabled by the disease that sickness prevented him from attending has proven fatal, of a successful profesto his clients.
sional career. Yesterday afternoon the court suspend- Resolved, That we condole and sympaed the hearing of the Hartman case, where thize with the surviving widow and reupon Frank Geise, Esq., announced the latives of the deceased in their great afflic
tion, and that as a last mark of our respect death of A. C. Deveney, Esq., a member
for the deceased we will attend his funof the Bar.
Resolved, That a copy of these resolu- quested afterwards, to remove Stauffer, tions be sent to the widow of the deceased, etc. This is not expressly denied or re
. that they be published in the newspapers plied to in the answer. of York, and that they be presented to But it is set out by the respondents in the court at its next session for the pur- the answer that, on or about the first pose of having them entered upon the day of January last, a demand had been minutes of the court.
made upon them by petitioners for the GEORGE W. HEIGES, Chairman,
payment of a bill ruuning from the 8th FRANK Geise,
of October, 1882, to the 8th of January, J. W. HELLER, A. N. GREEN,
for the support of said Stauffer and alW. A. MILLER,
leged damages done by him to the buildE. D. Ziegler, Wm. A. Miller, A. N. ing, furniture, etc., amounting to $49.70. Green, D. K. Trimmer, Geo. W. Heiges This bill, the overseers to whom such noand Richard E. Cochran, Esqs., were ap- tice was given, neglected or refused to pointed pall-bearers.
pay. So there does not appear to have The meeting then adjourned.-York been unreasonable or inexcusable delay
. Daily, January 30, 1884.
in giving notice to the Overseers of Lick
ing Creek township of the name, circumQUARTER SESSIONS.
stances and condition of Stauffer. They
should at once have proceeded themselves Q. S. of
Pulton County. to remove Stauffer, and prevented the furPoor Directors of Bedford County v. Poor ther expenditure of money in his mainteOverseers of Licking Creek Township. nance by the Directors of the Poor of Poor Districts-Liability of.
Bedford county. The Respondents had The Directors of the Poor of Bedford county notified abundant information to make it incumthe Overseers of Licking Creek township to remove an insane inmate of the Bedford County Almshouse, but bent upon them to move in the matter, they failed to do so. A bill was presented to them for the maintenance of said inmate, which they refused to pay and to render the order of removal three HELD, That the plaintiff was entitled to recover. An insane person is within the meaning of the Act
months afterwards unnecessary. of 1836.
Where there has been a removal and an acceptance The answer admits the mental infirmity without appeal, the district accepting is liable to the district removing for costs and charges.
of Stauffer. The brief interval of two In re Rule upon the Overseers of the days between the 7th of October, when
, Poor of Licking Creek township, in said he was arrested, and the oth of October, county, to compel payment by them of when he was admitted into the insane the sums of money necessarily expended department of the Bedford county Almsfor the use of John Stauffer, and in main-house, constitutes no sufficient answer to taining him, by the Directors of the Poor the rule. of Bedford county.
The case is very much like that of Submitted on petition and answer. Charles Naus, in Overseers of Sugarloaf
MCLEAN, P.J. The order of removal township v. Directors of the Poor of in this case, unappealed from, is conclu- Schuylkill County, 8 Wr: 48r, which desive upon all parties. Renovo Overseer cided that although an insane person is not vs. Half-Moon Overseers, 28 P. F. Smith within the letter of the 23d Section of 301.
the Poor Law of 1836, 2d Purdon's Digest, The petition sets forth, either at the p. 1759, pl. 38, he is within the equity of time of the arrest, which was in October, the act, and a proceeding like that which 1882, or after the entry of the nol pros we are now considering was sustained as on the 24th of November, 1882, the Over- not wresting the statute å whit from its seers of the Poor of Licking Creek town- spirit;. vide Renoyo Overseer V. Halfship, were requested, and repeatedly re- Moon Overseers, supra.
Then we have the very case provided court that the amount of damage assessed for by the Act of 15th of April, 1867, P. is so small that the public interest will be
, L. 84, 2d Purdon's Digest, 1157, p. 123, advanced by paying the same and openwhere there has been a removal and an ing the road, the court shall decide acacceptance without appeal. The district cordingly; but if the court shall be of the accepting shall be liable to the district re- opinion that the necessity for the 'road moving for costs and charges. As we will not justify the county in paying the
. have said, the answer does not show that damage assessed, the court shall refuse to the costs and charges in this case are not confirm the report of said viewers;' the reasonable and just; Directors of the immediately preceeding section (Sec. 3)
) Poor of Blair county vs. Overseers of the makes it the duty of the viewers to state Poor of Clarion borough, 10 Norris 431 ; in their report, "whether in their opinion
, Overseers of Poor of Williamsport vs. the road is of such public utility that the Board of Guardians of Poor of Philadel- amount of damages ought to be paid by phia, 7W.N. C. 232.
the county." The poor laws of this Commonwealth Section sixth provides that all reports are a system created for the purpose of on roads be laid before the county comgiving immediate relief. The Directors missioners, to be examined by them; and of the Poor can no more wait for money it shall be their duty to report for the inthan Stauffer, the sinews supplied to one formation of the court, what they kpow strengthen the other, and the needs of in the premises."
in the premises.". And by the ninth seçboth are immediate; Moore et al., Over- tion, it is provided, that notice shall be seers of the Poor of the City of Williams- given "to one of the county commisport vs. City of Philadelphia ; 13 Phila. sioners of the time and place of holding 425, same case, 36 Legal Int. 174.
all views, re-views and re-re-views, for Rule made absolute.
the assessment of damages held under
authority of this act.*** Road in Lower Chanceford Township.
The report of the viewers in this case,
states that in their opinion the road is of Road Damages-County Commissioners. such public utility that the amount of
, y Right of
damages assessed by them ought to be The reviewers of a proposed roadreported that the road was of such public utility that the damages ought to be
paid by the county. This report was paid by the county, The Comuiissioners reported that
laid before the county commissioners and the viewers were confirmed, but on application of the Commissioners, a review of damages, was grapted, .- An
was examined by them, and they reportorder was issued to open the road, whereupon the Com- ed for the information "of the court that missioners moved for a suspension of this order until their review of damages was disposed of HELD. That thę the damages assessed were excessive. motion must be refused.
The ultimate opening of a road does not depend upon the amount of damages to be paid by the county.
The report of the viewers was confirm- Rulë tó suspend order to open a roaded by the court.
ed by the court. . A review of damages in Lower Chanceford township.
on the application of the county com
missioners was granted on the 16th day G. W. Heiges, - for rule.
of April, 1883. On the 28th of May, 1883, H. W. MoCall, contra.
a petition for review of the road in quesJuly 30, 1883, GIBSON, A. L. J.-The was filed, and a rule to show cause why ,
a fourthi section of the act of the 17th of the same should not be allowed, was February, 1860, P. L. 62, relating to roads granted returnable June 11, 1883, and the and bridges in York County, makes it proceedings stayed in the meantime. The the duty of the court to examine the
court to examine the petition for a review of the road, is, of amgugt of damages assessed by the road course, too late.
course, too late. But on the hearing of viewers ; "and if it shall appear to said the rule to show cause, a motion was
made that the order to open the road be may petition for reviewers to assess the suspended until the question of damages the damages sustained by him, and the is disposed of, on the commissioners' re- county must pay such damages. This view.
was a right of the landholder and no one The practice has been, in case the
else. The Act of 1860 was intended to viewers report favorably to the opening have an adjudication in the first instance of the road, to confirm their report, unless whether the county should pay the damaexceptions are filed to its confirmation. ges. The landholder can still have his The effect of the exceptions is to suspend review if dissatisfied with the amount the confirmation until all questions raised awarded to him. Whether a review by by them are decided.
But the report
the Commissioners can reduce the award once confirmed, the duty of the court, in will be a question raised by this review. respect of the necessity or the utility of But it cannot suspend the order to open the road and the payment of the dama- the road. ges, is ended. The confirmation of the Motion overruled and order to open report of the viewers, unless a review or issued. second view is asked for within the prescribed time, is res adjudicata as to the
Corporations--Capital Stock--In opening of the road. The duty of the Capital Stock (Opinion of Atty. Gen'l,) court as to the examination of the dama- 2 Chester County Reports, 185. ges is performed. Omnia presumuntur
Under the 3d section of the Act of 29th rite esse acta.
April, 1874, no charter can be granted In this case, the County Commissioners where the application fails to state that made report for the information of the ten per centum of the capital stock has court that the damages were excessive. been paid in cash to the treasurer of the This they were not prepared to sustain intended corporation. at the argument. And they have now asked for a review of damages on the
2nd PENNYPACKER. ground that the damages assessed are ex. cessive. The motion is to suspend the order The Second Volume of Pennypacker's to open the road until the report of these Pennsylvania Supreme Court Reports, is reviewers of damages is returned, is based just out, and upon close examination
proves to be a most valuable work for upon the idea that the ultimate opening Pennsylvania lawyers. It is an excellent of the road depends upon the amount of compilation of such cases as were adjudg. damages to be paid by the county. This ed by the Supreme Court, at Jan. Term, is a misapprehension of the law. That 1882, and were not designated to be reconsideration can only arise upon the tains the names of all the Judges of the
ported by the State Reporter. It conconfirmation of the road report, and not Courts of Common Pleas, and Orphans' upon a review of damages. Besides the Courts, together with all the counsels question whether the damages are exces- whose cases appear and all Masters, Resive or not, is a very different question ferees, Auditors and Commissioners. The from that as to whether the necessity or alphabetically. It also contains a full and
cases are according to counties, arranged utility of the road will justify the county complete index, and list of the names of in paying the damages. The review now all cases reported, and cases cited in the pending can only raise the question as to opinions of the Supreme Court. It is the amount of damages to which the land finely printed, and well bound, and holder is entitled. By the Act of 1 3th the production of the well known Law
comprises over six hundred pages and is of June, 1836, Sec. 7, P. L. 556, the owner Publishing House of Rees, Welsh & Co., of land through which a road is opened of Philadelphia.