« ПредишнаНапред »
HELD, that the claim could not be sustain- Suit for wages before alderman-Cered, as if the shed was an addition to a tiorari Rules governing employees completed building the lien should have Not binding on Minor.—The evidence been filed for such addition.—Steyert's upon which a judgment is entered by an Est., (Montgomery 0. C.) 10 Montgom- alderman need not be set out on the recery Co. Law Reporter 75.
ord, as there can be no reversal for an erRailroads-Dangers by-Streets. – In ror in his judgment upon the facts or the
— estimating damages caused by the con-law. In a suit before an alderman for struction of a railroad the jury can take wages the judgment for plaintiff will not into consideration the purpose for which be reversed on certiorari, because the althe land was used, its adaptability for fu- derman's record does not set forth by ture uses, and the probable necessity for whom or when the work was done or the future use of the land in connection with kind of evidence by which the claim was the business for which it was intended; sustained. Rules for governing employees and if the power or ability to expand the signed by a minor are not binding on him. business gives the land an additional Shults v. Slaymaker, Barry & Co., (Lanvalue, this will be the subject of compen- casterC.P.)1 Lancaster Law Review148. sation. The opinion of experts upon this Widow's appraisement-Desertion of question is competent; and although a wife by husband, who marries again.“ witness may not know market values, yeu Where a married woman was deserted by if he has knowledge of the property and her husband, who subsequently married how it is affected by the construction of again and died while living with the secthe railroad, he can testify as to depreci- ond wife, and the first wife was not diation. Where a borough has ordained a vorced from him, but continued to supstreet, but before it is opened a railroad port herself and their children, he makcompany appropriates the land, the rail. ing no provisions for her, and was willing road company will be held liable for ali to live with him, but was prevented from the damages sustained, irrespective of the doing so by his illegal acts, the family reaction of the borough.-Spring City Gas lation still existed between them in conLight Co. v. Penn'a Schuylkill Valley R. templation of law and followed him to his R." Co., (Montgomery C. P.) 10 Mont- new home, and the first wife, therefore, gomery Co. Law Reporter 69.
and not the second, is entitled to the $300 Statute of limitations-Lunacy com- exemption.-Grieve's Estate, (Lancaster mittee accounts--Audit of. The confir- C. P.) 11 Lancaster Law Review 149. mation of an auditor's report distributing Will–Construction of-Life estate.a balance in the hands of a committee of Testator directed as follows: “I direct a lunatic, as shown by one of his triennial that my son shall have for his own use statements in which the distribtution is and occupancy during the period of his madle without objection to a claim then life my home farm, on which I now rebarred by the statute of limitations, is not side, situate on the Springhouse and Hillsuch a conclusive adjudication of the lia- town turnpike, near Montgomery Square, bility of the lunatic upon the claim, as together with all the stock and appurtewill preclude him from pleading the bar nance, the farm to be maintained in its of the statute in an action at law against present state of fertility and repair by my him, after being restored to reason, or in said son, and at his death the use and ocaudit, distributing the balance shown to cupancy to be continued to his issue, if he be in the committee's hands by the final shall so have; and if none, then to the account.-In Re Raeder, (Luzerne C. next of kin, and so on as long as the laws P.) 7 Kulp 275.
of this commonwealth will permit." Salaries of county officers and their Held, that the will gave a life estate to clerks.-Under the act of March 31, the son, and after his death an estate in 1876, the county is not liable to the depu- fee to the son's issue, and in default of ties and clerks of county officers, whose such issue, to the next of kin; and that salaries have been fixed by the board con- by the operation of the rule in Shelley's stiuted for that purpose, on a demand for Case, and the act of April 27, 1855, P. additional compensation for extra services L. 368, the son took an estate in fee.rendered out of office hours.-Russell v. Armstrong v. Michener, 10 Montgomery Luzerne Co. (Luzerne C. P.) 7 Kulp 279. County Law Reporter 65.
Work Legal Resord. 要
whilst she was then a married woman,
she bought from Emanuel Eppelman, of THURSDAY, MAY 3, 1894. No. 47. said Jackson township, certain real es
tate, and which said real estate was duly COMMON PLEAS.
conveyed to her on or about said day by
the said Emanuel Eppelman; that at the Eppleman v. Bott.
time of said conveyance she executed her Judgment-Married woman-Surety for judgment note to said grantor in the sum husband's debts.
of fifteen hundred dollars ($1500.00) in B., a married woman, purchased real estate part payment of the purchase money of from E., giving as consideration her judgment the said real estate, to wit, the sum of
At the same time she signed another two thousand dollars ($2000.00); and judgment note for $500 in favor of E., which paid to him the sum of five hundred dollatter note was, she claims for a debt due by lars, in cash; that on the same day she her husband to E. This note was executed by B. without any knowledge of its character, al- signe:1 another judgment note in favor of though there is no evidence to show that she is said Emanuel Eppelman in the sum of an illiterate woman, or asked to have the note five hundred dollars, a copy of which said read to her. After the death of E., and B.'s note is hereto attached and made part of husband, E.'s administratrix entered said judg- this petition, under a misapprehension of ment for $500 whereupon B. presented her petition to have the same stricken off. Held, fact, the object, tenor and effect of which that the petition must be granted.
note was not made known nor explained In the absence of any evidence of misrepre- to her at the time of signing the same; sentation or fraud in procuring her signature, that since the signing of said latter note the judgment can not be opened on the ground of five hundred lollars, both her husband that she was ignorant of the nature and char
and Emanuel Eppelman have died; that acter of the note.
With the exception of being unable to con- letters of administration on the estate of vey or mortgage her real estate without the said Emanuel Eppelman have been duly consent of her husband, and his joinder there- granted to Caroline L. Eppelman, and in, and inability to become accommodation en- that since the granting of said letters of dorser, guarantor or surety for the debt of another, a married woman stands upon an equal- administration the said administratrix ity with other persons capable of contracting, has caused the said judgment so as aforeas regards her rights, powers, obligations and said given to Emanuel Eppelman to be liabilities, in relation to contracts.
entered of record in your Honorable To say that a married woman is liable on a Court'to No. 319, August Term, 1893, note given for the debt of her husband under
and further had caused to be issued circumstances such as are shown in this case, would be to abrogate the proviso of the Act of thereon, an attachment execution to No. 1887, and destroy the only protection remain- 41, October Term, 1893, directing the ing for the property and estates of married Sheriff of York County to attach and women from the overshadowing influence of levy the amount of said judgment in the their husbands and their rapacious creditors.
hands of Michael Bott, who is a creditor To establish a ratification of such a note, after the death of her husband, the promise of your petitioner. must be clear and distinct, and the recovery Your petitioner further represents that, must be on the new promise.
at the time of the signing of the said Petition to open judgment, and let de- note, she was not made acquainted with fendant into defence.
the fact that she was signing a note or The petition of defendant in this case
obligation to secure the debt of her said
husband; that since the signing of the is as follows: To the Honorable, the Judges of the learned that the same was given for
said note of five hundred dollars she has Court of Common Pleas of York
money borrowed by her husband, Harry County, Pennsylvania.
G. Bott, from the said Emanuel EppelThe petition of Ella A. Bott, respect- man; that although her name appears fully represents :—That she is the widow first on said note, she never received any of Harry G. Bott, late of Jackson Town- consideration therefor, and that no part ship, York County, Pennsylvania, de- of the sum named therein ever came into ceased; that on or about the 6th day of her possession or was used or applied by April, 1892, whilst her deceased husband, her to her separate use, but was for the Harry G. Bott, was still living, and Isole use of her said husband.
Your petitioner further represents that and obligations of married women, under only since the death of said Emanuel Ep- the act of 1887, in the cases of Adams v. pelman was she made aware of the exist- Grey, 152 Pa. 258; Evans v. Evans, 155 ence of the said note of five hundred dol- | Pa. 572; McCormick v. Butdorff, lars, as an obligation against her for the 331; Abell v. Choffee, 154 Pa. 254, and debt of her husband, she supposing that Milligan v. Phipps, 153 Pa. 298.' Thi all papers signed by her on the date Court proceeds to say that the last dewhich said note bears, related exclusive- cision cited was rested on the second ly to the sale and conveyance of the reai clause of the first section of the act of estate hereinbefore referred to.
1887, which is as follows: "But every Your petitioner further represents that married woman shall have the same righi she has been informed and verily believes to acquire, hold, possess, control and disthat she is not liable to pay said note or pose of her property, real and personai, any portion thereof, by reason of being a in possession or expectancy, in the same married woman at the time of signing the manner as if she was á femme sole, withsame, and by reason of exemption by law cut the intervention of a trustee, and from becoming surety or guarantor for with all the liabilities incident thereto, debts contracted by her said husband except as herein provided, as if she were while she was a married woman, and she not married." *** * * * * * * “It is therefore prays your Honorable Court to of no use to cite decisions made before order a stay of all further proceedings on the passage of the law to show that this said judgment note and to grant a rule on law is not to be obeyed. They were a said plaintiffs to show cause why said consequence of the state of the law as it judgment should not be opened and set then existed, but that condition of the aside as to her, and to grant to her such law is now abrogated and a new condition other and further relief as to your Hon- prevails, with new rights, new duties, ors may seem meet and proper, and as to new liabilities, new obligations much justice appertains. And she will ever more in accor:) with the teachings of ELLA A. BOTT. common sense and practical justice, than
before. It is the plain duty of the courts Geise, Ziegler & Strawbridge for mo- in this commonwealth, to enforce the tion.
new law just as we find it and according E. I'. Spangler, contra.
to its plain meaning and obvious intent. February 26, 1894. BITTENGER, J.- The only restrictions upon the powers The defendant, above named, Ella A. conferred by the act of 1887 are, that Bott, in this case asks the court to strike a married woman shall have no power to off the said judgment, or open the same mortgage or convey her real estate unless and let her into a defence, for two rea- her husband joins in such mortgage or sons specified, namely: 1. Because she conveyance; and the additional provision was induced to sign the note and warrant in the second section “that nothing in upon which the above stated judgment this act shall enable a married woman to was entered, by a misrepresentation of become accommodation endorser, guarfact and the concealment, from her, oi antor, or surety for another." With the the tenor and effect of the said note and exceptions here named, a married woman warrant; 2. Because the same was given stands upon an equality with other perby her as surety for, or guarartor of the sons capable of contracting, as regards Jebt of her husband, Harry G. Bott, 110w her rights, powers, obligations and liadeceased, which fact she only discovered bilities, in relation to contracts. after the death of her said husband.
The application of the well settled law The law applicable to married women, upon this question to the case in hand, involving their ability to execute, and ob- under the evidence, makes it plain that ligation upon a contract, and especially the egitable relief here invoked cannot notes and judgments, is very clearly stat- be granted for the first reason specified, ed by Green, Justice, in the opinion of the to wit: misrepresentation and ignorance court in Camp v. Horne, 158 Pa. 508. of the nature and character of the note In that case is shown the advance steps and warrant. taken by the Supreme Court in constru- There is evidence wliatever of ing the law relative to the rights, powers I misrepresentation or fraud in procuring
the signature of the petitioner to the that there was no money paid there that judgment note in question. Neither is day. These facts were proven by the there any evidence that she read or re- ; testimony of P. M. Strausbaugh, Esq., quested the note to be read before affix-and not contradicted. ing her name to it. P. M. Strausbaugh, Jacob C. Rutter, a brother-in-law of Esq., who wrote the note, says he thinks petitioner, testifies that Emanuel Eppelhe read the note to her, before its execu- man, on the day of the funeral of Harry tion, but he is not certain. It is not shown G. Bott, on July 4, 1892, said to him, that she is illiterate. Indeed her signa- the witness, in a conversation between ture to the note shows her to be a lady of them, that he had given Harry G. Bott education and intelligence. Even an some church money; that he referred to illiterate person must require a written a note for some money he had given said obligation to be read or explained to hini Bott, church money, “and if everything before he signs it, or he cannot avoid the goes right when they settle that note he obligation because it is other than he would favor her even more, either drop thought it to be; Johnston v. Patterso.1, part of it, or drop all of it.” 114 Pa. 39; Weller's Appeal, 103 Pa.594. Horace Brillinger, petitioner's brother,
Is the petitioner entitled to the equit. testifies, substantially, to the same conable relief sought, because the note and versation, with Emanuel Eppelman, on warrant were given, by her, as surety to the said day of the funeral, and when, for secure the payment of her husband's his sister, he sold her real estate, the one debt to Emanuel Eppelman, the payee | tract to Emanuel Eppelman for $1,487.named in the obligation?
50, after the death of Harry G. Bott, he, The evidence shows that on the 6th Eppelman, surrendered to the petitioner day of April, 1892, the date of the note the $1,500 note, refusing to take any in question, the parties, viz., Emanuel change; and that in reference to the $500 Eppelman and the petitioner and her note, said he would leave that until he husband, Harry G. Bott, had a business got his affairs straightened up at bank, transaction in the presence of P. M. and if he could get along without that Strausbaugh, Esq., which consisted of money, he would drop it, or at least part the conveyance of two tracts of land, sit- of it; that in subsequent conversations, uated in Jackson township, York county, Eppelman said all that he owed him yet Pa., by Emanuel Eppelman to the peti- was $500, church money. tioner, Ella A. Bott, for the consideration Frank Geise, Esq., testifies that he was, named in the deeds, of $2,000; that Mr. generally, attorney for Emanuel EppelStrausbaugh, the scrivener, after the exe- man, did all his business, but was not cution and delivery of said deeds of con- consulted about this note or this matter; veyance, at the request of Emanuel Ep- that on one occasion when Emanuel Eppelman, the grantor, drew up a note for pelman was in the witness' office said Ep$1,500, for the purchase money of said pelman said he had a judginent note real estate, which was signed by Ella A. against Ella A. Bott for $1,500, purchase Bott, the grantee; that a few minutes money due on a sale of property conafterwards, at the same request, he pre-veyed, by him, to her, and also another pared a note for $500, the note in ques- note given by Mr. and Mrs. Bott for tion, and that upon the scrivener asking | $500, given by them, for church money, why the whole amount was not included in addition to the $1,500. in the first note Eppelman said the $500 The only evidence to rebut that of the was church money that Harry Bott had petitioner is the testimony of Caroline “and if he lives and everything goes Eppelman, administratrix of said Emanright, we will fix this some day;" that uel Eppelman, deceased, her three daughthe petitioner, Ella A. Bott, was in the ters, Emma Eppelman, Mary Crouse and kitchen at the time of the conversation Jane Eppelman, and E. W. Spangler, Esq. between Strausbaugh, the witness, and The testimony given by Caroline EpEmanuel Eppelman, and that she was pelman and her three daughters above not informeil that the note was for church named, is to the effect that on the 7th money; that nothing was said in her way of July, 1893, the petitioner, Ella A. presence as to what either of the notes Bott, was at the house of Caroline Eppelthat day executed by her were for, and man; near the property and house of the petitioner, and in their presence, said: $500 note was given by the petitioner, She was only glad the Uncles never lost for the church money owing to Emanuel anything by Harry; that she owed $500 Eppelman, by Harry G. Bott, is the peyet, and that's up in the house there, and titioner liable on said note, under the I'm going to pay it, or I intend to pay it." decisions heretofore quoted and consid
E. W. Spangler, Esq., testifies that a ered? She is only liable in the event of time not specified, after the death of her it being established as a payment of her husband, in an interview with the peti- husband's debt by her, and not an oblitioner, she said she owed the $500 note, gation of suretyship for his debt. She is and that it would be paid, she thought, not, and cannot be bound, as we have the following week; if not, at least before seen, as a guarantor or surety. CerApril.
tainly a married woman may pay her Jacob Rutter was recalled on behalf of husband's debt, and it has been decided the petitioner and swore that he was by Judge Arnold, in Harrar v. Honey, 2 present at the conversation testified to by Dist. Řepts. 375, that the giving of a E. W. Spangler, Esq., at his, witness' note by a married woman for the debt of house, and the petitioner said she had her husband under circumstances such as signed the note, and that it had to be are shown in this case, is a payment of paid.
the debt, extinguishes it, and that thereElla A. Bott, being examined, says, in fore the maker of the note is liable reference to the same conversation, that thereon, although a married woman. she did not say to Mr. Spangler that she This position of this learned and progresowed the note and was going to pay it, sive Judge, who is not only fully abreast but that she then said in said conversa- with the most progressive jurisprudence tion “I suppose I will have to pay it be- of the times, but is a valiant pioneer in cause I signed it.”
the field of progress, if not improvement, The testimony shows that the actual in Pennsylvania law, in the past noted consideration for the real estate conveyed and admired for its conservatism, conby Emanuel Eppelman, instead of being sistency, symmetry and stability, is deem$2,000, as written in the deeds, was ed by us as untenable. If adopted and $1,500; that the $500 note in question, established, the proviso of the act of bearing even date with the $1,500 note, 1887, that said act "shall not enable a given for the purchase money, was for married woman to become accommodachurch money gotten by the husband of tion endorser, guarantor or surety for the petitioner from Enianuel Eppelman, another," will be abrogated, and legislatand for which her said husband was in- ed away by the courts, and the only prodebted to Emanuel Eppelman, at the tection remaining for the property and time of the execution of said note. estates of married women from the over
The testimony of Caroline Eppelman shadowing influence of their husbands and her daughters, that the petitioner and their rapacious creditors, destroyed. said in the conversation mentioned by the We cannot take this step, until the Suwitnesses, "that she owed the $500, and preme Court sets the pace. that it was in the house and she intendeci It must be remembered that Eila .I. to pay it," is not inconsistent with the Bott is joined by her husband in the note testimony on behalf of the petitioner. It in question. Although she appears on does not show or tend to show that said the note as principal, she is, in fact, but $500 note was for the balance of the pur- surety for her husband's debt, and in our chase money named in the deeds. The opinion, is not bound without ratification petitioner doubtless meant, when she said since her husband's death. In this event the $500 "was in the house there," that the promise must be clear and distinct, to the property was the intended means of pay the debt, and the recovery must be payment, that the money for its payment on the new promise: Real Estate Co. v. would be realized on its sale. This is Roop. 132 Pa. 496; Nesbitt v. Furner, most probable, for the reason tliat it does 155 Pa. 429. not appear that at that time she had any The evidence of ratification and promother estate or property, with which to ise to pay, after the discoverture of the pay the note.
petitioner, Ella A. Bott, is conflicting. Having reached the conclusion that the It is not clear and satisfactory. This, as