238. Where there is a report of viewers in favor of, and a report of reviewers against, a proposed road, and it appeared that there were ninety miles of road in the township, that the ordinary taxes were insufficient to keep them in proper repair, that the damages assessed were two hundred dollars, that the cost of opening the road and bridging the creek would be from one to two thousand dollars, and that, with the exception of two or three families, the existing roads accommodated the public reasonably well and where the private road law afforded an ample remedy for those especially interested, it was held that there was no such public necessity for the road as the law contemplates.-Road in Huntingdon, 79.

venient water closets, two in number when both sexes attend the school, separated by a close and substantial fence at least seven feet in height; and to make provision for keeping said water closets at all times in a clean, comfortable and healthful condition. Failure to comply with the provisions of this act makes the Directors removable from office by the Court.-Ib. SCHOOL HOUSES, 92. SERVICE, 155, 224. SET-OFF, 252.

COSTS.

247. The costs of a case so far as they are made up of officers' fees belong to them and not to the party in whose favor judgment is entered; if the party recovering desires to make the costs available as a set-off he must first pay them. -Rupp v. Swartz & Evans, 68.

JUDGMENTS.

248. One judgment will be set off against another regardless of its character, or of the incidents which pertain to its enforcement.Rupp v. Swartz & Evans, 68.

249. Where a party is sued in a representative capacity and judgment is entered against the plaintiff, the costs which the defendant recovers so far as they belong to him at all, belong to him individually.-16.

250. One judgment cannot be set off against another until both have been entered and the record is complete.-[b.

SHERIFF.

JURY WHEEL, 60.

SUIT AGAINST.

der an execution issued on one of two judgments 251. The plaintiff's real estate was sold unand the sheriff retained $126.59 as costs out of the proceeds, which were insufficient to satisfy the judgments. Subsequently the plaintiff satisfied the judgments, and obtained a decree from the Court striking out $68.55 of these costs. The Sheriff appealed to the Supreme Court who dismissed his appeal, and the plaintiff brought suit on his appeal bond for the $68.55 and $12 Supreme Court costs. HELD, that the suit was properly brought on the sheriff's appeal bond instead of on his official bond.-Johnson v. Burkholder et al., 96.

252. HELD, further, that the claim being adjudicated, no defence could be allowed but payment and satisfaction, and a counter claim could not be maintained as a set-off.-/b. SHERIFF'S SALE.

DISTRIBUTION.

HELD,

253. P, by his will directed that all his estate real and personal, should be sold by his executors, and then disposed of the proceeds, naming J. as one of the residuary legaters. that such positive and unequivocal directions wrought an equitable conversion, and J. took no interest under that will in the land of the testator as land.-Wolf v. Porter, 194.

254. Plaintiff issued execution against J. and upon Sheriff returning "no personal property," levied upon the interest of J. in the land of P., which was 'taken into execution as real estate'

255. The plaintiff having levied condemned and sold the defendant's interest as land, is estopped in this proceeding to deny that it was land; for he who claims the proceeds of property sold in execution must claim under the sale, and not in hostility to it.-Ib.

SHOW BILL, 64.

STATUTE.

CONSTRUCTION OF.

256. While the position of a proviso in a statute has a great and controlling influence upon the extent of its applicability, yet the inference from its position cannot override its plain general intent.-City of York's Appeal, 33.

STREETS.

OPENING OF.

257. Objections to an ordinance providing for the widening of a street, on the ground that it was passed in the interest of one land owner only, must be made by an appeal to the Quarter Sessions. They cannot be raised on exceptions to the report of viewers appointed to assess damages.-Young's Appeal, 58.

258. An exceptant who does not appear before the viewers, and except and object must be held to have waived any objections as to damages as affected by the course and description of the street in the ordinance and the draft attached to the report.—Ib.

WIDTH OF, 40.

SURETY, 39, 186.

SUMMARY CONVICTION, 62.

SUMMONS, 155.

TOWNSHIP.

LIABILITY OF, 207-11.
POWERS OF SUPERVISORS.

259. The supervisors of a township not acting collectively or at a meeting, but separately, signed an agreement giving a right of way to an electric railway company. Afterward, at a meeting, they gave a grant over the same road, to another railway company. On a bill filed by the second company to restrain the first from building a railway on said road, HELD, (reversing the Court below) that the preliminary injunction must be dissolved.-Union Street Railway Company's Appeal, 20. VOTING PLACE, 91-5. WAGES.

ATTACHMENT OF.

260. Plaintiff issued an attachment execution on a transcript of a judgment recovered before a Justice of the Peace, attaching money in the hands of the garnishee. The garnishee in his answer admitted his indebtedness to the defendant, but claimed that it was for wages due him.

261. Even if a note had been given for these wages, it could not be attached.-/b.

262. Under the Act of 8 May, 1876, an attachment cannot be issued against wages for board, until judgment has been obtained.-Thatcher v. Beam, 140.

WAIVER, 258.

WIDOW.

CLAIM OF, 72, 78.

EXEMPTION, 124.

WILL.

CONSTRUCTION OF.

263. W. devised his estate to his wife for life and at her death to "all our children." He had children and grand-children by deceased children by a former marriage and two children by the last wife, living when the will was made. HELD, that testator's children by both marriages were entitled.-Wampler's Estate, 32. lows: "I then give and bequeath to my grand264. The testator provided inter alia as foland above his full share of all the other heirs of son, Jacob Weidman, five hundred dollars over my daughter Rebecca and my son John, the same to be paid to the said Jacob Weidman, my grandson, as soon as he shall arrive at the age of twenty-one years.

same.

of my two children aforesaid said twenty-three acres of land shall be appraised by a jury of six persons-said jurors shall be appointed by the Court and after such appraisement shall have been made my grandson, Jacob Weidman, shall have the choice of taking said land at the appraisement, if he thinks proper, he paying the other heirs their respective shares out of the the aforesaid five hundred dollars to be paid to my grandson, Jacob Weidman, at any time after the death of my daughter Rebecca and not before the same, to be paid out of the land or real estate now in the possession of Michael Weidman, in which said land I now have an undivided fourth part.' HELD, that Jacob Weidman was only entitled to interest on said legacy from the death of John Meyer.— Meyer's Estate, No. 2, 39.

265. It is apparent that the legacy was not payable until after the death of John Meyer. Before that time the fourth interest mentioned in the will, could not be appraised and taken by Jacob Weidman at the appraisement; and as it was to be paid out of the interest or land, it could not be paid before the appraisement. It was necessary to realize sufficient money to pay said legacy out of said interest or land either by Jacob Weidman taking it at the appraisement, or on its sale, in case of his refusal to accept. The testator could not have meant to order it to be paid until it became possible to pay it out of the proceeds of the fourth interest in the land.

-Ib.

266. The testator devised his estate to executors in trust to collect the income and pay the same to his widow for the maintenance of herself and minor children; if she should die or remarry during the minority of any of the children, the income to be paid to the guardian