"C. The interest of the remaining Two hundred dollars ($200,) at five per cent., to be paid each and every year to the minister in charge of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Churchtown for preaching the gospel." The testator in his life-time purchased a lot in the above-mentioned cemetery, where his body now lies buried, which by another clause of his will he provided should be enclosed with posts and railing. He left a farm at 107 acres and 26 perches of land in Caernarvon township, on which he resided when his will was made and at the time of his death. This farm has since his death been sold by his executors under the direction of his said will, subject to the above charge. The questions submitted to the Court for decision are: Is the said legacy of five hundred dollars, or any part thereof, subject to collateral inheritance tax, and if subject to it, who is liable to pay the same? Is it to be deducted from the principal sum, and the charge on the farm to be five per cent. less? Is it to be paid out of the accruing interest; or, is it to be paid out of the residue of the estate of testator. If the tax is to be deducted from the principal sum, or to be paid out of the accruing interest, then judgment to be entered for plaintiffs for one dollar, and if it is to be paid out of the residue of the estate, the judgment to be entered for defendants for one dollar. June 22, 1883, LIVINGSTON, P. J.-Is the legacy in this case, or any part of it, subject to the payment of collateral inheritance tax, and if so, how and by whom is the tax to be paid? appear to be the questions to be decided by the Court. The one hundred dollars of the five hundred dollars mentioned in the case stated, the interest of which is to be applied to dressing and keeping his grave and burial lot in order, is not in our judgment subject to collateral inheritance tax. While it is true we are taxed in life and taxed in death, and from the cradle to the grave are taxed, on all we make or save, we believe a man in life may honestly and without being chargable with an intent to defraud the Commonwealth or evade the collateral inheritance laws, place in trust by will or charge upon his real estate devised to collateral heirs a sum of money the interest of which shall be sufficient for and annually applied to the purpose of dressing, caring for, and keeping his own grave and his own burial lot in good order and condition, and that such sum, so set apart or charged, is exempt from such tax. With reference to the other four hundred dollars mentioned it the case stated, we are of opinion that under the Acts of Assembly as found on our statute books, and the decisions of our supreme Court with reference to collateral inheritance tax in this Commonwealth, said sum is subject to this tax, and that the tax must be deducted from and paid out of said money so directed to be charged on said real estate, the testator having made no provision for its payment out of any other fund, or out of the residue of his estate. We, therefore, in accordance with the requirement of the case stated, direct judgment to be entered for the plaintiffs for the sum of one dollar. Judgment accordingly. Will-Construction of-Life Estate"his entire estate, real, personal, and mixA testator gave, devised and bequeathed ed, unto his wife Virginia, to be used and enjoyed by her as long as she lived," and ordered and directed that after her death, verted into cash and be paid to Pater Ig"whatever may be left should be connatius Sagerer in trust, etc." The wife sold under articles of agreement the real estate of decedent to F. Held, that the wife had but a life estate in the real esple to the purchaser.-Waldhoeffer v. tate, and could not give a title in fee simFalk, (Lancaster C. P.) 1 Lancaster Law Review 38. YORK LEGAL RECORD. VOL. IV. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1884. No 48. Andrew C. Deveney. Andrew Caslow Deveney was born in Springfield township, York county, in 1853, and was in his 31st year at the time of his death. His father was Levi Deveney, and one of his brothers is Hon. J. C. Deveney, a member of the Legislature from this county. He taught several terms in the public schools of the county and finally registered as a law student un der the late W. H. Kain, Esq., who was the County Superintendent. He spent one term in the Law Department of the Pennsylvania University at Philadelphia and after passing a very creditable examination, was admitted to the Bar on June 24, 1878. Mr. Deveney was a candidate for the nomination as Clerk to the Commissioner on the Democratic ticket in 1879, and last year was a candidate for the District Attorneyship nomination on the same ticket, but failed both times to secure the necessary number of votes, although he had many warm friends in the convention. Mr. Deveney seemed to have inherited consumption, and had several severe attacks during the past six years, each of which left him the less able to resist the subsequent stroke. The attack from which he finally died confined him to his house in the beginning of the present winter, and grew more violent until it ended in his death. Mr. Deveney was a young man of good qualities, and made many friends. He was acquiring a good practice, until his sickness prevented him from attending to his clients. Yesterday afternoon the court suspended the hearing of the Hartman case, whereupon Frank Geise, Esq., announced the death of A. C. Deveney, Esq., a member of the Bar. He referred to his early acquaintance with the deceased, having been his school teacher at one time. Later, he occupied the same office with the deceased, and during that time learned to appreindustry and power to comprehend the ciate his sterling virtues. He spoke of his intricacies of the law, and paid a glowing tribute to his memory, and ask that the court adjourn. The motion was seconded by A. N. Green, Esq., who spoke of the deceased as a young man of fine abilities and unquestioned integrity. Court then adjourned until nine o'clock this morning. Immediately upon the adjournment of the court room. court a meeting of the bar was held in The meeting was organized by the selection of Hon. Judge Gibson as president, and S. C. Frey, Esq., as secretary. Judge Gibson paid a handsome tribute to the memory of the deceased, referring to his devotion to the interests of his clients, and his endearing qualities as a man. On motion of G. W. Heiges, Esq., the court appointed a committee of five to draft the usual resolutions of respect to the memory of the deceased. G. W. Heiges, Frank Geise, A. N. Green, J. W. Heller and W. A. Miller, Esqs., were ac cordingly appointed as such committee. They reported the following resolutions, which were unanimously adopted: WHEREAS, Death has again entered the ranks of the York Bar, and removed from our number A. C. Deveney, therefore, Resolved, That by the death of A. C. Deveney, the bar has lost a bright member, painstaking in his investigations of legal questions, and who gave promise, before he was disabled by the disease that has proven fatal, of a successful profes sional career. Resolved, That we condole and sympathize with the surviving widow and relatives of the deceased in their great affliction, and that as a last mark of our respect for the deceased we will attend his fun Resolved, That a copy of these resolu-quested afterwards, to remove Stauffer, tions be sent to the widow of the deceased, that they be published in the newspapers of York, and that they be presented to the court at its next session for the purpose of having them entered upon the minutes of the court. GEORGE W. HEIGES, Chairman, J. W. HELLer, W. A. MILLER, Committee. E. D. Ziegler, Wm. A. Miller, A. N. Green, D. K. Trimmer, Geo. W. Heiges and Richard E. Cochran, Esqs., were appointed pall-bearers. The meeting then adjourned.-York Daily, January 30, 1884. Poor Directors of Bedford County v. Poor Poor Districts-Liability of. The Directors of the Poor of Bedford county notified the Overseers of Licking Creek township to remove an insane inmate of the Bedford County Almshouse, but they failed to do so. A bill was presented to them for the maintenance of said inmate, which they refused to pay. HELD, That the plaintiff was entitled to recover. An insane person is within the meaning of the Act of 1836. Where there has been a removal and an acceptance without appeal, the district accepting is liable to the district removing for costs and charges. 4 etc. This is not expressly denied or replied to in the answer. But it is set out by the respondents in the answer that, on or about the first day of January last, a demand had been made upon them by petitioners for the payment of a bill running from the 8th of October, 1882, to the 8th of January, for the support of said Stauffer, and alleged damages done by him to the building, furniture, etc., amounting to $49.70. This bill, the overseers to whom such notice was given, neglected or refused to pay. So there does not appear to have been unreasonable or inexcusable delay in giving notice to the Overseers of Licking Creek township of the name, circumstances and condition of Stauffer. They should at once have proceeded themselves to remove Stauffer, and prevented the further expenditure of money in his maintenance by the Directors of the Poor of Bedford county. The Respondents had abundant information to make it incumbent upon them to move in the matter, and to render the order of removal three months afterwards unnecessary. The answer admits the mental infirmity 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 9th 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. Submitted on petition and answer. MCLEAN, P. J. The order of removal in this case, unappealed from, is conclusive upon all parties. Renovo Overseer vs. Half-Moon Overseers, 28 P. F. Smith 301. The petition sets forth, either at the time of the arrest, which was in October, 1882, or after the entry of the nol pros on the 24th of November, 1882, the Overseers of the Poor of Licking Creek township, were requested, and repeatedly re The case is very much like that of Charles Naus, in Overseers of Sugarloaf township v. Directors of the Poor of Schuylkill County, 8 Wr: 481, which decided that although an insane person is not within the letter of the 23d Section of the Poor Law of 1836, 2d Purdon's Digest, p. 1759, pl. 38, he is within the equity of the act, and a proceeding like that which we are now considering was sustained as not wresting the statute a whit from its spirit; vide Renovo Overseer v. HalfMoon Overseers, supra. Then we have the very case provided | court that the amount of damage assessed is so small that the public interest will be advanced by paying the same and opening the road, the court shall decide accordingly; but if the court shall be of the opinion that the necessity for the road will not justify the county in paying the damage assessed, the court shall refuse to confirm the report of said viewers;" the immediately preceeding section (Sec. 3) makes it the duty of the viewers to state in their report, "whether in their opinion the road is of such public utility that the amount of damages ought to be paid by the county.' for by the Act of 15th of April, 1867, P. L. 84, 2d Purdon's Digest, 1157, p. 123, where there has been a removal and an acceptance without appeal. The district accepting shall be liable to the district removing for costs and charges. As we have said, the answer does not show that the costs and charges in this case are not reasonable and just; Directors of the Poor of Blair county vs. Overseers of the Poor of Clarion borough, 10 Norris 431; Overseers of Poor of Williamsport vs. Board of Guardians of Poor of Philadelphia, 7 W..N. C. 232. The poor laws of this Commonwealth are a system created for the purpose of giving_immediate relief. The Directors of the Poor can no more wait for money than Stauffer, the sinews supplied to one strengthen the other, and the needs of both are immediate; Moore et al., Overseers of the Poor of the City of Williamsport vs. City of Philadelphia; 13 Phila. 425, same case, 36 Legal Int. 174. Rule made absolute. Road in Lower Chanceford Township. Road Damages-County Commissioners. Right of. The reviewers of a proposed road reported that the road was of such public utility that the damages ought to be paid by the county. The Commissioners reported that the damages assessed were excessive. The report of the viewers were confirmed, but, on application of the Commissioners, a review of damages was granted, An order was issued to open the road, whereupon the Commissioners moved for a suspension of this order until their review of damages was disposed of, HELD. That the motion must be refused. The ultimate opening of a road does not depend upon the amount of damages to be paid by the county. Section sixth provides that all reports on roads be laid before the county commissioners, to be examined by them; and it shall be their duty to report for the information of the court, what they know in the premises." And by the ninth section, it is provided, that notice shall be given "to one of the county commissioners of the time and place of holding all views, re-views and re-re-views, for the assessment of damages held under authority of this act. The report of the viewers in this case, states that in their opinion the road is of such public utility that the amount of damages assessed by them ought to be paid by the county. This report was laid before the county commissioners and was examined by them, and they reported for the information of the court that the damages assessed were excessive. The report of the viewers was confirm Rule to suspend order to open a road ed by the court. A review of damages in Lower Chanceford township. G. W. Heiges, for rule. July 30, 1883, GIBSON, A. L. J.-The fourth section of the act of the 17th of February, 1860, P. L. 62, relating to roads and bridges in York County, makes it the duty of the court to examine the amount of damages assessed by the road viewers; "and if it shall appear to said on the application of the county commissioners was granted on the 16th day of April, 1883. On the 28th of May, 1883, a petition for review of the road in queswas filed, and a rule to show cause why the same should not be allowed, was granted returnable June 11, 1883, and the proceedings stayed in the meantime. The petition for a review of the road, is, of course, too late. But on the hearing of the rule to show cause, a motion was made that the order to open the road be suspended until the question of damages is disposed of, on the commissioners' review. The practice has been, in case the viewers report favorably to the opening of the road, to confirm their report, unless exceptions are filed to its confirmation. The effect of the exceptions is to suspend the confirmation until all questions raised by them are decided. But the report once confirmed, the duty of the court, in respect of the necessity or the utility of the road and the payment of the damages, is ended. The confirmation of the report of the viewers, unless a review or second view is asked for within the prescribed time, is res adjudicata as to the opening of the road. The duty of the court as to the examination of the damages is performed. Omnia presumuntur rite esse acta. In this case, the County Commissioners made report for the information of the court that the damages were excessive. This they were not prepared to sustain at the argument. And they have now asked for a review of damages on the ground that the damages assessed are excessive. The motion is to suspend the order to open the road until the report of these reviewers of damages is returned, is based upon the idea that the ultimate opening of the road depends upon the amount of damages to be paid by the county. This is a misapprehension of the law. That consideration can only arise upon the confirmation of the road report, and not upon a review of damages. Besides the question whether the damages are excessive or not, is a very different question from that as to whether the necessity or utility of the road will justify the county in paying the damages. The review now pending can only raise the question as to the amount of damages to which the landholder is entitled. By the Act of 13th of June, 1836, Sec. 7, P. L. 556, the owner of land through which a road is opened may petition for reviewers to assess the the damages sustained by him, and the county must pay such damages. This was a right of the landholder and no one else. have an adjudication in the first instance whether the county should pay the damages. The landholder can still have his review if dissatisfied with the amount awarded to him. Whether a review by The Act of 1860 was intended to the Commissioners can reduce the award will be a question raised by this review. But it cannot suspend the order to open the road. Motion overruled and order to open issued. Corporations--Capital Stock--In reCapital Stock (Opinion of Atty. Gen'l,) 2 Chester County Reports, 185. Under the 3d section of the Act of 29th April, 1874, no charter can be granted where the application fails to state that ten per centum of the capital stock has been paid in cash to the treasurer of the intended corporation. 2nd PENNYPACKER. The Second Volume of Pennypacker's Pennsylvania Supreme Court Reports, is just out, and upon close examination proves to be a most valuable work for Pennsylvania lawyers. It is an excellent compilation of such cases as were adjudg ed by the Supreme Court, at Jan. Term, 1882, and were not designated to be reported by the State Reporter. It contains the names of all the Judges of the Courts of Common Pleas, and Orphans' Courts, together with all the counsels whose cases appear and all Masters, Referees, Auditors and Commissioners. The cases are according to counties, arranged alphabetically. It also contains a full and complete index, and list of the names of all cases reported, and cases cited in the It is opinions of the Supreme Court. finely printed, and well bound, and comprises over six hundred pages and is the production of the well known Law Publishing House of Rees, Welsh & Co., of Philadelphia. |