APPEAL BY C. SCHEAFER FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY.

No. 148 January Term 1890, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 42 May Term 1888, C. P.

On April 27,1888, James Black, as surviving'trustee of Monterey Lodge, No. 242, I. 0. of O. E., brought assumpsit against Adam Oblender and Christian Scheafer. Issue.

At the trial on December 3, 1889, it was shown that Adam Oblender was elected and qualified as the treasurer of the lodge for the term of one year, giving bond in fl,000 with Christian Scheafer as his surety. The first meeting night of his term was April 3,1885, and the last meeting night, March 26,1886. At this last-mentioned meeting, Oblender was re-elected treasurer for another term, but did not qualify by giving bond. About May 1, 1886, E. E. Snyder was elected treasurer, was duly qualified, and made demand upon Oblender for the funds of the lodge in his hands at the end of his term, March 26,1886.

The court, Patterson, J., charged the jurjr in part as follows:

This action, gentlemen of the jury, is brought on a bond which you have heard read, and you saw it was signed by Adam Ob-lender and also by Christian Scheafer. Adam Oblender was not served and has put in no plea, and therefore there then can be no verdict against him in this suit. Christian Scheafer is the only defendant answering, and he puts in the plea of nonassumpsit.....

—After reviewing the testimony, the court proceeded:

[Well, then, what more does the plaintiff need to show, if, at the end of the year, this sum of $748.28 was still in the hands of Mr. Oblender? But the gentleman for the defence argued, that because the default was not discovered until after the termination of that year, therefore he is not liable. It is a strange argument, and one that you and I would not advance. If you owed me a note payable in thirty days, and it was not paid at maturity, and a day or two after I would come and demand payment from you, I would not hold that the note was not liable to be paid because it was not paid in the thirty days. Hence, in this case it was found that so much money was in the treasurer’s hands. When the year ended he was re-elected. However, he did not seat himself properly as treasurer, under the by-laws of his own society; he never gave bail after that, and if he liad, it would not avail the defendant here, because the plaintiff did not give up the amount of money received in that year, as well as the money paid out within that year. They could not do it. They could not charge this bail with anything else, although the gentleman for the defence insisted upon giving you that point.] 1.....

…

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress