Графични страници
PDF файл

lars, and the process shows that the damages and that she so applied those means in payment claimed were less than one hundred dollars, the of the purchase money.-Feig et al. v. Myers, 83. court will not reverse because the amount of the

SEPARATE EARNINGS. claim is not set out on the transcript.-Mulligan

3. A petition by a married woman, to secure v. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 28.

her separate earnings, under the Act of 1872, SUMMONS.

must set forth what earnings the petitioner has 14. A summons issued on the 23d, returnable or expects to have, or what business she expects on the 27th of the month, and was returned to engage in, or how the earnings she desires to served on the 23d by leaving a copy at the dwell- secure are to accrue.-Slaybaugh's Case, 132. ing house of the defendant in presence of another. MASTER AND SERVANT. NEGLIGENCE, 3-5. HELD, That upon this state of the record this issuing of a short summons was irregular.

PROMISSORY NOTE, 4. Smythe v. Morgan, 157.

MECHANIC'S LIEN. 15. The summons was made returnable at elev- DEFECTIVE. en o'clock instead of between certain hours. 1. The omission of the middle initial of a deHELD, That the Act of 26 April, 1855, while it fendant's name, in a mechanic's lien, will postpermitted the justice to make the summons re- pone the lien to others correctly entered with turnable between certain hours, did not make it the initial.--Scott v. Irvin, 156. obligatory upon him to do so, and if he did not,

SURETY. it is not fatal to the proceedings.Metzgar v. 2. One who has joined, as surety, in a conShetter, 7.

tractor's bond conditioned that no lien shall be LANDLORD AND TENANT.

filed against the building cannot subsequently

acquire a lien as a sub-contractor.-Hinkson v. BAIL.

Fairlamb, 177. 1. Where a lease has the name of A. as lessee

TIME OF FILING, in the body of the paper, and is signed by A. and also by B. with the word "bail” added to his certain date, according to the original plan.

3. The defendant finished his building on a name, it is a joint undertaking by both.-Brown Five months afterward he changed the flooring, v. Peters, 170.

and put in new material for the old. Held, that 2. As between themselves they are principal a mechanics' lien filed three months after the and surety; in favor of the lessor they are both change of flooring being eight months after the principals.-16.

first completion was too late. -Stoner v. LeiberLIABILITY FOR RENT.

knecht, 130. 3. A landlord, under a claim for rent, can hold MORTGAGE. possession of personal property previously sold

WHAT IS. by the tenant, demanded by the purchaser, but not delivered, and remaining on the premises, being unable to pay the amount of the bid, bor

1. Where a purchaser of realty at Sheriff's sale even though an actual formal distress had not

rows the amount from another, and the Sheriff's been made.-Furbush v. Fisher, 85.

deed is made to that other under an agreement RENEWAL OF LEASE.

that the said conveyance shall stand as security 4. Upon the question of an implied renewal for said loan with interest, such conveyance is of a tenancy all the terms of the former lease

in law a mortgage, and equity will decree a remust be considered. Hence if a landlord elect

conveyance to the borrower on payment of the to treat one holding over as a tenant, he thereby loan.—Logue's Appeal, 175. affirms the form of tenancy under which the tenant previously held.-Hollis v. Burns, 12.


1. A borough has no authority to purchase a LIENS. DECEDENT'S ESTATES, 5.

judgment so as to make it a set off against a TION, 8. WILL, 8.

judgment against the borough.-Earley's Ap

peal, 127 MARRIAGE.

2. Article 9, section 7 of the Constitution proCONTRACT OF.

hibits a borough from loaning its credit to any 1. If a female under the age of twelve years individual.-Io. enters into a marriage contract and ratifies it SUIT UNDER ORDINANCE. after she arrives at that age, it is binding upon 3. In an action to recover a penalty for vioher.- Ward's Estate, 36.

lation of municipal ordinances, the suit must be MARRIED WOMAN.

brought in debt, and where the whole penalty is

payable to the municipality, it must be brought DEED TO. 1. The owner of land is not estopped from set

in the name and title of the corporation, and not

in the name of the informer.- Lemon et al. v. ting up his title against judgment creditors,

Reidel, 164. though they had no actual or constructive notice

4. Penal actions must be construed strictly, of his title at the time they gave credit or filed

and cannot be so extended as to give authority the judgment against the occupant. A married

in the absence of express words, to the peace woman is not bound to record her deed under officer to sue in his own name.-16. pain of losing her land if seized by her husband's

5. The transcript of the alderman must set creditors.— Feig et al. v. Myers, 83.

forth the offence and ordinances violated with PROPERTY OF.

sufficient clearness and precision. Every essen2. A married woman alleging that at her sug- tial ingredient of the offense must be set out by gestion her husband purchased land for her and the magistrate. The ordinance, if not in haec she furnished the money for all the payments, verba, should be designated by number, section must show that she had the means to buy with, or date of passage.-16.



6. Where these ingredients are omitted, the 11. The plaintiff, while walking along the judgment will be reversed.-16.

highway upon a dark night, turned aside for the NAME.

purpose of taking a footpath which led through

private property, and, by reason of a miscalcuCORRECTNESS OF. JUDGMENT, 3-7. MECHAN- sation as to his position, fell over the unguarded

IC'S LIEN, 8. ROADS, 14. edge of a culvert and sustained severe injury NEGLIGENCE.

thereby. It was in evidence that he was familiar OF DRIVER.

with the condition of the place, having habitually 1. Where the defendant, through careless driv- travelled that way about fifteen years, and that ing, collided with the plaintiff, it is no defence

if he had not attempted to leave the street the to an action for damages, that the plaintiff was

accident would not have occurred. HELD, that deaf, and therefore did not hear the defendant's the municipality was not liable.-City af Scrancries.-Smith v. Inners, 21.

ton v. Hill, 112. 2. The rule applicable to driving over a rail

12. Plaintiff brought suit against defendant for road track does not extend to an ordinary road.

injuries occasioned to plaintiff and his horse, by -16.

reason of a road in said township not being

opened and graded to its full width, and the abOF EMPLOYER. 3. Plaintiff was employed in defendant's shops

sence of guards along a certain embankment. where the machinery was driven by a small en

Defendant filed a special plea, alleging that the gine fed by a pipe from the large boiler and un

road was open of sufficient width for travelling attended by any one. By the breaking of the

by persons using ordinary care, and that the governor belt of this engine, the shafting was

plaintiff was not in full control of his team at the

time of the accident and negligently permitted propelled at a high rate of speed, a pulley on this shaft was broken, and the plaintiff struck by one

them to occasion the injuries complained of.

HELD, to be valid.-Hartman v. Hellam Townof the fragments, resulting in the breaking of a limb. HELD, That if the jury believed that the

ship, 23. defendant did not exercise due care in having

RAILROAD. an engine thus unattended and the plaintiff was 13. Plaintiff in approaching a railroad crossguilty of no contributory negligence, he was ing, stopped at a point somewhat remote from entitled to recover.-Cole v. Schall, 179.

the track, (and from where he could not see the 4. It is the duty of an employer to use due and approaching train) listened, and failing to hear reasonable care as to the safety of the appliances anything drove on. There was a point nearer and machinery furnished by him. But, on the

to the track where he could have stopped, but other hand, where a servant accepts employment failed to do so, drove on and was struck by the on defective machinery, either from its construc- train. HELD, That whether his failure to stop tion or want of proper repair, and with know- at the place nearer to the track was such conledge of the facts enters on the service, the mas- curring negligence on his part as would prevent ter cannot be held liable for injury to the servant a recovery, is a question for the jury,-- Dempwithin the scope of the danger which both the wolf v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 129. contracting parties contemplated as incidental 14. A brakeman in the employ of defendant to the employment.-16.

company, was ordered on a car that was being 5. If plaintiff was placed in a position of peril run into a switch. The brakes on the car being by the accident which happened to the governor

defective he was unable to stop it and met with belt of the engine, and the jury believe this oc- an injury which resulted in his death. In an cured because of a want of reasonable care on action brought by his widow and minor children, the part of the defendant, the plaintiff could not HELD, That plaintiffs could not recover.-Rig. be held to the exercise of the soundest judgment ney v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 163. under such circumstances of peril, and his right 15. It was a rule of defendant company that to recover would not be defeated because he was the brakeman should examine brakes before cutinjured while trying to save the machinery in ting a car loose from a train and decedent had his charge.-16.

been told so by the conductor. HELD, his failOF PUBLIC AUTHORITIES.

ure to do so was such contributory negligence as 6. The General Borough Law of 1851, invests to relieve the defendant from liability.-16. municipal authorities with the management and 16. The brake chain having been unhooked, control of the borough highways and this power at a station along the line, by persons unknown includes the maintenance of such highways.- the defendant company was not liable for injuries Siltzer v. Wrightsville Borough, 199.

received thereby, the decedent having neglected 7. The duty to supervise and repair cannot be to examine said brakes before getting on the escaped because the act does not in so many car.16. words charge the corporate officers with it.-16.

NEW TRIAL. 8. It is the duty of the corporate officers to exercise reasonable vigilance in the supervision REASONS FOR. and repair of structures over which their juris

1. Where the question at issue is essentially diction extends.-16.

one of fact, and the case presents the ordinary 9. Mere absence of notice does not necessarily conflict of testimony a new trial will not be absolve a municipal corporation from the charge granted on the ground that the verdict was of negligence.-16.

against the weight of the evidence.-Anstine v. 10. Where the evidence shows that the defect Mayer, 21. in the boardwalk was patent before the accident, 2. Even when the jury may differ in opinion and could, with the exercise of reasonable dili- with the court, it is no ground upon which to gence on the part of those having charge of it, grant a new trial, where there is a conflict of have been discovered and repaired, actual notice testimony; or where the cause is submitted on is unnecessary.-16.

the credibility of the witnesses.-16.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]




3. On a motion for a new trial the defendant 2. A rule to plead and a rule to arbitrate are failed to produce proof that the alleged disquali- inconsistent and cannot be entered at the same fications of some of the jurors was unknown to time.Esrey v. Gray, 174. him or his counsel during the trial. HELD, That DIVIDED COURT. the motion must be dismissed, because not prop- 3. Where there are two judges in a Court, and erly supported by evidence.-Com. v. Stokes

a decree is made by one which is dissented to by et al., 187.

the other, the Court being thus equally divided NOTICE.

no valid order or decree can be made.-Mad

lem's Appeal, 49. ANNUAL DUES. INSURANCE, 1-4.

4. Where no proper decree can be made by OF LIEN. JUDGMENT, 3.

reason of the failure of the judges to agree, they ORPHANS COURT. DECEDENT'S ESTATES, 4. have the power to call upon a judge from another

district to hear and decide the case.-16. PARENT AND CHILD.


5. Of papers produced on call, the party calling 1. The principles which govern cases of claims may offer in evidence such as he choose. He is between parent and child have application to not bound to offer all, certainly such as he had cases between persons standing in the relation not furnished himself and which he had not of step-mother and step-son, where family re- called for.-Heaffer v. New Era Life Insurlation exists between them.-Guss' Estate, 81.

ance Company, 146. 2. In such cases there must be proof of an ex

6. When the court erroneously refuses to allow press contract to pay for services or boarding, a party to prove an essential part of his case, he before there can be a recovery.-16.

is not bound to go on and prove the remainder 3. If an actual agreement to pay be proved of his case.-16. and the sum be not expressed a quantum valebat

FOR JURY. will be implied.-16.

4. It is not held essential that a witness should 7. A. sent to B., a lard dealer and negotiator be present with the parties to hear their bargain.

of loans, with whom he had been in the habit of The question always is whether the parties con- transacting business, a certificate of stock with templated payment and dealt with each other instructions to sell when the stock should touch as debtor and creditor.-16.

a certain price. No agreement was made as to

B.'s receiving any compensation for his services. PENAL ACTIONS. MUNICIPALITY, 3-6. B., finding that the stock was rising, deposited PERSONALITY. DECEDENT'S ESTATES, 8. it with C., a stock-broker, with instructions simPHYSICIAN.

ilar to those he had received from A. C., in turn,

sent it to D., another stock-broker, with like in1. The acts of Assembly of the 8th of June, 1881, entitled "An act to provide for the regis

structions. Subsequently, C. failed, and D. sold

out all the securities deposited by him, including tration of all practioners of medicine and surgery," is a constitutional and valid statute, and

the one in question, to cover C's indebtedness not within the prohibition as to laws ex post against B. to recover the value of the certificate,

to D. In an action afterwards brought by A. facto.-Commonwealth v. Taylor, 79.

the Court left it to the jury to say whether B. 2. A vested right of property in a business

was a bailee for hire, or a gratuitous bailee, incalling or profession can only exist when the

structed them that in the former case he was pursuit or practice of it is in conformity with the

liable for slight negligence, and in the latter for law of the land.

gross negligence only, and left it to them to say PLEADING.

in either event whether B. had been guilty of INCONSISTENT. PRACTICE, 2.

the sort of negligence for which he would be

liable. HELD, a verdict having been found for VALIDITY OF. SEE NEGLIGENCE, 12.

A., that it was error to leave it to the jury to say 1. In an action of trespass on the case for the

whether B. was a bailee for hire or not, as the killing of a dog, the defendant filed a special

law would imply that he had contracted for complea admitting the killing, but alleging that the plaintiff's dog had been in the habit of worrying having done B. no harm, constituted no ground

pensation for his services, but that this error his (defendant's) cattle, and that on the night for reversal.-Swartz v. Hauser, 193. of the alleged trespass some dogs were worrying

8. Held further that the question of B.'s neghis cattle and therefore in the dark he shot and wounded the said plaintiff's dog, and further

ligence was properly submitted to the jury.-18. averring that if any damage was thereby occa

SUBPOENA. sioned to the plaintiff it was occasioned by the

9. A subpena duces tecum served on a witness unlawful trespass and depredations ofthe

said dog requiring him to produce certain books or papers HELD, to be a valid plea-Sutton v. Coover, 22.

in his custody and control is complied with by 2. The matters of fact set out being certain to

their being brought into court at the time specia common intent, and forming one connected

fied.-City v. McManes, 178. proposition, the plea is not objectionable in form.-16.

10. Plaintiff filed a bill against defendant, al

leging that the defendant had erected a paper PRACTICE.

mill on the Codorus creek, and had caused noxAFFIDAVIT OF DEFENCE. PROMISSORY NOTE, I ious substances to flow from said mill, and thereARBITRATION.

by rendered the water unfit for domestic use. 1. Where a rule to arbitrate has been entered Defendant in his answer denied the charge. and the time to choose arbitrators has gone by Defendant filed his petition for a change of venue, judgment by default may be entered without alleging that the Court, (or any member of the striking off the rule to arbitrate.--Heffner v. bar who might be appointed Master or ExamConfair, 4.

iner) was interested in the question to be deter


mined in the suit, being water renters. HELD, judgment, and after the lapse of five years the
not to be sufficient grounds for a change of venue. defendant filed his petition praying

the Court to
York Water Company v. Glatfelter, 87. quash the scire facias and strike off the report

11. The question in issue is purely one of fact, of the Re-auditors. HELD, That the petition
and is so abstract in its character that it cannot must be dismissed.— York County v. Reeser, 207.
give rise to any bias or prejudice whatever.-16. 2. The defendant having appealed from the

12. The defendant amended his application, report, has himself brought it into Court for
and setting forth the list of stockholders of the adjudication.16.
plaintiff company, alleged that a large number 3. There may be matter for judicial investiga-
of the inhabitants of the county had interest in tion, and this can only be determined upon the
the question involved therein adverse to the de- hearing of the appeal, upon an issue properly
fendant. HELD, That the mere fact that these presented to the Court.-16.
individuals were stockholders of the plaintiff ROADS.
company is not evidence of the fact that they
have an interest in the question involved adverse

to the defendant.

1. A petition for a road set forth that the road
13. The interest that the stockholders might

was to end at a point in the line ef the borough
have by the benefit accruing from pure water, is

of Carlisle, where South Street as ordered to be
one that can only arise after it is ascertained that

laid out and opened by the ordinances of that
the defendant caused the impurity of the water

borough would meet the line of said township of

South Middleton,"
which is the subject of complaint.-16.

The report set forth that

they had “laid out for public use the following

road,”' describing the termini as in the petition.

By a borough ordinance three viewers were ap-
1. An affidavit of defence alleged that the pointed, who laid out South Street, and assessed
promissory note on which suit was brought had damages. Appeals were taken from this award
been obtained from the defendant under misrep- of damages and are still undetermined. At a
resentation, and that the consideration had failed; subsequent meeting the town council passed an
that the plaintiff was present in a conversation ordinance repealing the “opening ordinance,"
between defendant's attorney and the holder of but this repealing act was never transcribed in
the note, when the attorney said to the holder the ordinance book or signed by the Chief Bur-
that the note was a fraud and would not be paid; gess, nor ever published in a newspaper. HELD,
and that the original payee of the note was a that an exception taken to the report on these
person engaged in dishonest practices, and whose grounds must be set aside.-Road in South
character should have been sufficient to put the Middleton Township, 63.
plaintiff on his guard. HELD, to be sufficient 2. Dubiter, whether, after the passing of an
to send the case to the jury.Wagner v. Kline,57 ordinance to open a street, the appointment of

viewers, assessment of damages, and confirma-
2. A bank is not obliged in favor of an endor-

tion of report, the town council can repeal the
ser to appropriate money deposited by the maker

ordinance.- 1b.
of a note, one of its customers, towards the pay-

3. Although said South Street has not yet been
ment of the note after it becomes due.-

People's opened, yet there is no ordinance to prevent its
Bank of Wilkesbarre v. Legrand, 123.

being opened, and therefore may terminate at

said point.--16.
3. An indefinite or uncertain extension of

4. After the determination of the question of
time for the payment of a note, which does not

damages the Court can compel the opening of

said South Street.-16.
tie up a creditor's hands, will not discharge an

endorser.-People's Bank of Wilkesbarre v. Le-
grand, 123.

5. The reviewers of a proposed road reported

that the road was of such public utility that the
4. In action on a promissory note defendant

damages ought to be paid by county. The Com-

missioners reported that the damages assessed
can set off a claim against plaintiff for damages
done to defendant by plaintiff while he, plaintiff

, confirmed, but, on application of the Commis-

were excessive. The report of the viewers was
was employed as engineer for defendant.-Nix-
on v. McCrory, 1o.

sioners, a review of damages was granted. An
5. If however it has funds of the maker in

order was issued to open the road, whereupon
hand at the time of the bringing the suit against

the Commissioners moved for a suspension of
the endorser he may avail himself of the niaker's

this order until their review of damages was dis-
right to set-off.- People's Bank of Wilkesbarre

posed of. HELD, That the motion must be
v. Legrand, 123.

refused.—Road in Lower Chanceford Town-

ship, 197

6. The ultimate opening of a road does not

depend upon the amount of damages to be paid

by the county.-16.

7. When damages are assessed by a road jury



[ocr errors]


the report must set out that the lands against
1. Under the provisions of the Act of 1872, the

which the damages are assessed are near and ad-
County Re-auditors reported an indebtedness on

jacent to the road.-Road in Ridley, 59.
the part of the defendant his colleagues, PETITION.
Commissioners of York County, of $3,019.20. 8. Where an old is asked to be changed and
This report was filed in the Prothonotary's office, straightened, the petition should also pray that
and judgment for that amount entered against the parts of the old road not required to be va-
defendant and his colleagues. Defendant ap- cated, in order that the statute forbiding the
pealed fom his report, but the appeal was never width of a road to be more than fifty feet be com-
prosecuted. A scire facias was issued on the plied with.Adamstown Borough Road, 46.



SHERIFF'S. SHERIFF'S SALE, I. 9. When the prayer of the petitioners is that WHAT CONSTITUTES. the jury may view both the old and the proposed road, and “if they should see occasion to lay out

4. J. & Co., being indebted to T. C. & Co., the same, to inquire of and vacate" the old road,

sold to them a powder car, with the understanda report which does not vacate the old road will ing, however, that J. & Co. were to have the use be defective.-Road in Ridley, 59.

of it by paying switch charges and a certain sum 10. Where the order to the viewers does not

per year. The car was removed from the switch conform to the petition praying to view, change

upon which it was standing, to another. Seven and straighten a road, it is a fatal defect and an

or eight days thereafter the car was used by J. & exception on that ground will be sustained. - Co., and afterwards, and finally, while so used, Adamstown Borough Road, 46.

was attached and sold as property of said J. & Co.

Held, in an action of replevin brought by T. C. TERMINI.

& Co. against the purchaser at a constable's sale, 11. It is not requisite in an order to viewers, that the plaintiff could not recover.Thomas, that it shows that the public road to be laid out Chambers & Co, v. Everhart & Co., 75. is to begin in a public road, and to end in a pub- 5. The removal of the car from one switch to lic road, but is sufficient when the points of another, was a sufficient change of possession to termini are set forth with reasonable certainty. -Road in West Cocalico Township, 3.

vest the property in the plaintiff.-16.

6. The agreement that J. & Co. were to have 12. A road terminating at a point on the borough line has a sufficient public terminis. -Road repairs and $18 per year,

the use of the car by paying "the switch rent,

such a qualification in South Middleton Township, 63.

of the plaintiffs' possession, as to render the sale 13. A report of viewers which sets forth that fraudulent in law.-16. the terminis of a new road was at a “post in the 7. The possession of the car by the plaintiffs Middletown and Arendtsville road,” will be re- was not so continued as to make it available to committed to the viewers for amendment, with them against the claims of the creditors of J. & Co. instruction to more particularly describe the 16. location of the post.-Road in Manellen Town ship, 128.


SEPARATE EARNINGS. MARRIED WOMAN, 3 The Court appointed Jacob Tyson as a reviewer

Jacob F. Tyson acted in that capacity. HELD,
That there was a jacob Tyson residing in a neigh-

BY MUNICIPALITY. MUNICIPALITY, I. boring township, and there is nothing to show ON NOTE. PROMISSORY NOTE, 4-5. who was intended, the report should be set aside

ON SUIT. JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, 7. and an alias review granted.-Road in Windsor Township, 210.



LIABILITY OF SHERIFF. CONDITIONAL. 1. As a rule, in cases of conditional sale, where

1. Some of the personal property that had been possession is given to the purchaser, the right of by the sheriff to a third party, the sheriff told

levied upon and advertised for sale was loaned reclamation, while good as between the parties, cannot be exercised against execution creditors

the bidder at the sheriff's sale that the property of the vendee or bona fide purchasers from him

loaned by him was to be sold with the other without notice of the conditional agreement.- property in his actual possession. HELD, that Lee & Bro. v. Byers, 183.

the bidder could recover from the sheriff.

Dunkle v. Harrington, 27. 2. A case which was held a conditional sale. -16.


RIGHTS OF SURETY. 3. L., the owner of an artesian well borer, was 1. When the sureties of a trustee are comindebted to M., an employee, and gave him a

pelled to pay money, owing to the trustee's rejudgment note for the same. Afterwards M.

fusal to do so, they will be subrogated to all the threatened to issue an execution, whereupon L.

rights of the cestui que trust or a new trustee gave him a second judgment note in payment of against

him, and can ask for a decree

compelling the first. Afterwards M. issued execution upon the first judgment which had not been marked John's Estate, 98.

him to pay to them said sums of money.-satisfied. After the levy of the property on this execution, L. sold the same to G., another em

SUMMONS. JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, 14-15. ployee, who had knowledge of the execution.

SURETY. SUBROGATION, I. The first execution was set aside and a second issued, when G. claimed the property. An issue

TAXES. was formed under the Sheriff's Interpleader Act, CLAIM FOR. DISTRIBUTION, 8. G. being plaintiff and M. defendant. Upon the the trial of the case these facts were proven, and 1. Manufacturing machinery affixed to the also L.'s efforts to sell the property; the fact premises by the lessee is subject to taxation as that G. paid no money for it, that Li's contracts real estate.-Luzurne County v, Galland Browere all completed, and that there seemed to be thers & Co., 188. no apparent change in the appropriation of the proceeds of the work and labor done for parties TENDER. who engaged the machine. The jury found for 1. A tender to be a legal one, must be for the the plaintiff. The Court (Gibson A. L. J.) set full amount due, and when once made, to be the verdict aside, as being against the weight of effectual, must be kept up at every stage of the the evidence.-Gantz v. McCracken, 184. action.- Eckman v. Hildebrand, 107.



« ПредишнаНапред »