Volume 4 — Walker's Pennsylvania Reports (1853–1887)

203 Januaiy Term, 1882. This case was certified to Lehigh Comity, and was there tried by the Court without a jury. The following statement of facts found and opinion thereon was filed by FACTS FOUND. 1. That on March 1st, 1865, all the property, powers and franchises of the Reading Water Company became vested in the city of Reading. 2.

No. 128 July Term 1880. The charge of the Court was as follows, per Gentlemen of the Jury: This is a suit brought by A. H. Weaver and William Walter, plaintiffs, against John Berkenstock, defendant, to recover the sum of $26. with interest, alleged to he due the plaintiffs hv the defendant upon a certain contract made between them.

'Certiorari to Quarter Sessions of Schuylkill County. No 19 July Term, 1877. On April 15, 1876 the Court appointed viewers to widen Norwegian street in. Pottsville, Pa. On May'22, 1876,. report ©f viewers widening Norwegian street as. prayed for, was filed, and confirmed.nisi, and damages approved and width fixed at 37| feet. On Juno 26, 1876, exceptions were filed, but were overruled on April 9th, 1877.

No. 217, January Term, 1863. The following extract shows the facts of tide case set forth in the Charge of the Court which was delivered by This is an action of debt brought by the plaintiffs against a corporation chartered under the general manufacturing lawrs of April 7, 1849, P Laws 568 ; April 20th, 1853, P Laws 637: and March - 27th, 1854. P. Laws 215; and against five stockholders.

No. 178, January Term, 1880. The Charge of the Court was as follows per Gentlemen oe the Jury: — This action is brought by John Weist, Treasurer of the Baker Silver Mining Co. against George Steininger to recover the sum of $200 on the following note : Allentown, Pa., February 10, 1874. “On the 1st day of January next ensuing the date hereof, “I promise to pay John Weist, Treasurer of the Baker Silver “Mining Company, or order, the sum of Two Hundred Dollars, with interest…

In. Equity. No. 135, January Term, 1882. The master’s report in this case was as follows : The question at issue in this case may, we think, be reduced to three affirmations on the part of the plaintiff, and three on the part of the defendants. The plaintiff alleges : First.

<p>A Court of Equity has jurisdiction to prevent the diversion of a stream of water which supplied plaintiff’s spring by a subterranean channel.</p>

1 of Philadelphia. In Equity No. 219, January Term, 1882. By an agreement, under seal, dated February IS, 18S1., William Pabst, one of the defendants below, for the consideration of $5,500, sold to Edward Furniss,. the appellee, his business of manufacturing and dealing in Brittania and silver-plated ware, at No. 611.

4 of Philadelphia County. No. 351, January Term, 1880. In September, 1879, John Carr sold to William J. Mc-Caughey, the Defendant, (an illiterate man who had been for many years in his employ), the stock good-will and.fixtures of a liquor store, No 3048 Market street.

In equity. No. 441, January Term, 1881. The Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s bill in the following opinion, per : The relief sought in this case is predicated upon the exist-once of a partnership between the plaintiff and defendant. The first question, therefore, is whether such partnership existed as is alleged.

No. 122, January Term, 1880. Appellant filed a petition for a citation to his grandfather to file an inventory and account of the estate of Anna B. Lardner of which he was sole executor.

In -Equity. No. 116, January Term, 1882. The facts of the- case are set forth in the report of the Master •which was as follows : The complainant in the bill prays for ‘an injunction ‘to rt-strain defendants from erecting a building on what is ■'claimed to-be Sixteenth street' in the city of Altoona between Tenth:and Eleventh avenues. -When-the bill was'first filed the building was in the course of construction, although-but little work had been done ; the joists were laid…

3 of Philadelphia County, In Equity. No. 74, July Term, 1879. Held: refusing a motion to dissolve an injunction, that defendants having made so complete a copy of plaintiffs’ mark, must be taken to have done so with an intent to give an advantage to which they were not entitled. Judge Paxson in Dixon Co. vs. Guggenheim, 7 Phila.

1, of Philadelphia County. No. 246, January Term, 1880. The American Protestant Association, an organization having subordinate lodges acting under charters granted by the Grand Lodge of the State of Pennsylvania, which, in turn, received its charter from the Grand Lodge of the United States.

No. 118, January Term, 1881. In this case Conway was found guilty of larceny, and was sentenced for more than three years’ imprisonment, because it was his second offence; the indictment, however, did not charge that it was his second offence. He then took a writ of error to the Supreme Court complaining of the sentence, being for more than three years.

County. No. 200, January Term, 1882. Isaac W. Steininger took the agency of the Singer Manufacturing Company at Reading and gave his promissory note for $5,738.72 for the machines, fixtures, &c. He also entered into an agreement to pay for all machines received, and the rent of all machines leased b}r him, George W. Steininger signed a bond for the fulfillment of Isaac W. Steininger’s agreement.

In Equity, Nos. 146, 147, 325 and 360, January Term, 1888. The White Creek Brownstone Company was incorporated by the Common Pleas of Northampton County in 1869, under ■the Act of July 18th, 1863, “relating to corporations for mechanical, manufacturing, mining and quarrying purposes.” Its name was changed by the Act of April 9th, 1872, P. L. 1009, to the Bethlehem Brownstone Company, and it was authorized to borrow money on judgment or mortgage, “provided that the…

No. 229, Januaiy Term, 1884. The facts agreed upon in the case stated were as follows : On the 23d day of May, 1883, a mechanic’s lien to No. 22,. March Term, 1883, was filed by Joseph Lorenz versus C. G. Glatzau and Win. Burdick and Parmeter, owners, and C. G..

259, January Term, 1883. The findings of the referee were as follows: 1. That Charles Sayre, in the year 1876, by reason of old age, became unable to work, and to earn himself a livelihood. 2. That in the year 1876 Charles Sayre was a denizen of Covington Township, then part of the County of Luzerne, now of the County of Lackawanna. 3.

3, of Philadelphia County. No. 233, January Term, 1882. The libel was as follows : The petition of Austin Culp, of the County of Philadelphia, respectfully showeth : That on the 14th day of March, A. D. 1881, your petitioner was, by a summary finding on a charge of desertion in the Court of Quarter Sessions of Montgomery County, in the State of Pennsylvania, by the Hon. Henry P. Ross, Judge, declared to have been married to one, Lizzie Ottinger, now calling herself Culp, on…

No. 65, July Term, 1881. This was a proceeding to widen Ploward Street in the Borough of Pottsville, and the viewers reported that they had widened said street two feet, and had taken a strip two feet wide and 218 feet long from the lot of “The Rector, Church Wardens and Vestrymen of Trinity Church, Pottsville,” and ■assessed the damages of said church at $1,200. The viewers were appointed December 20th, 1880, and on January 3rd, 1881, the report was filed and confirmed nisi.

<p>The Court of Quarter Sessions has jurisdiction in a proceeding to widen a street in Pottsville.</p> <p>The Act of February 7, 1867, does not apply to Boroughs.</p> <p>A report of road viewers awarding damages may be confirmed nisi immediately upon presentation.</p>

No. 259 January Term 1884. Error to. Common Pleas of Union County. Marsh gave judgment notes for debt with an attorney’s commission of six per cent for collection, dated February 8, 1883. The notes were entered up on April 6, 1883, and execution issued. Defendant paid debt, interest and costs into Court on April 30, 1883, and petitioned the Court to be relieved of the payment of the attorney’s commission.

10 Tanuary Term, 1883. This was an action of assumpsit upon promissory notes. .William C. Kuser, the maker of the notes, filed three affidavits of defense, the material parts of which are as follows: The notes whereon the said suit is founded, were given by the said William C. Kuser to John B. Rauch, Treasurer of the United Brethren Mutual Aid Society of Pennsylvania, a Corporation for the insurance of lives, under the laws of Pennsylvania.

77 July Term, 1884. The facts of the case as found by the Auditor are as follows: On or about 28th November, 1883, George S. Burgan, to evade the payment or collection of an execution then issued against him for about one hundred and fifty dollars, in favor of one M. Lederer, proposed to John Barrett, his father-in-law, that he (Burgan) would give him a judgment note, upon which Barrett should proceed to execution and sell him out.

In Equity. No. 144 July Term, 1882. Joseph Brown and Alexander Gray, entered into partnership in the banking business, in Wilkesbarre, on May ist, 1869, for five years with equal division of profits and losses, and in case of death to continue the full five years. Gray died on April 6th, 1873, and his executors agreed upon a dissolution of the partnership on May ist, 1874, and empowered Joseph Brown to settle up the partnership affairs.

No. 6, July Term, 1883. Duncan McVicker held two judgments against Geo. W. Gump amounting to $3,563.55, and threatened to issue execution thereon. Defendant promised to pay him four per cent, additional if he would not do so. McVicker agreed to this,, and G. W. Gump executed a judgment note to McVicker for $142.54. - On February 20, 1874, McVicker assigned this n Per Curiam.

No. 173, October and November Term, 1874. The report of viewers set forth that the proposed road would cause no damage to the land through which it passed, but would be a benefit thereto. It did not set forth that they had endeavored to obtain releases from all the owners. Two landowners-excepted to the report, alleging that they had not been asked 1o release. The Court overruled the exception and confirmed the report. This certiorari was then taken.

Error of Common Pleas No. 3 of Philadelphia County. No. 27 July Term, 1884. This was a petition for a mandamus by Hugh Sweeney against the Reverend Hugh McLaughlin Beneficial Society, stating that he had brought suit against the society for sick benefits, and that they had expelled him in consequence; and praying to be reinstated.

No. 147 January Term, 1885. The charge of the Court was as follows, per: ■Gentlemen of the Jury: This is an action of trespass brought against Boynton Nev-ling, who was acting in the capacity of constable, by Wm. Arnot, on the 13th day of March, 1884, for levying upon and selling his property (one bay mare, &c.) in violation of his alleged claim of the benefit of the $300 exemption law.

i, of Philadelphia County. No. 392 January Term, 1884. Frederick Tiedemann & Co. agreed to pay the Cutler Manufacturing Co. seven cents a yard for goods manufactured by Burns & Ballou, and delivered to Tiedemann & Co. from warps furnished by the Cutler Co. to Burns & Ballou.

No, 342 January Term, 1885. On March 4th, 1884, a report of viewers was filed and confirmed nisi. On May 7th a petition was presented to the Court to vacate the road, and viewers to vacate were appointed. On May 26, the original report was marked by the clerk “confirmed absolutely,” according to the rule.

No. 162 January Term, 1872. This was a petition for a road in Bedminster Township, and the jury reported in favor of the road. Exceptions to the .report were filed as follows: . i. The petition upon which said jury was appointed did not set out any certain beginning or ending of the road prayed for. 2.

No. 413, January Term, 1884. This case was an attachment under the Act of March 17th, 1869, P. Laws 8. In this case Shuppel bought of Shaw tobacco which was to be stowed in Everhard’s warehouse until September, 1882, and then paid for. Shuppel assorted it and ■claimed it was not the quality agreed upon, and notified him (Shaw) to take it back.

In Equity-No. 189 July Term, 1882. Bright Star Association No. 59, Independent Order-of Philogatheans, is an unincorporated association, founded at Hamburg, Berks County, in 1868. The object of the Association is the moral and intellectual improvement of the female sex and mutual aid among the female members of the body by the payment of benefits during sickness and death.

<p>Appeal from Common Pleas of Berks County. In Equity-No. 189 July Term, 1882.</p> <p>Bright Star Association No. 59, Independent Order-of Philogatheans, is an unincorporated association, founded at Hamburg, Berks County, in 1868. The object of the Association is the moral and intellectual improvement of the female sex and mutual aid among the female members of the body by the payment of benefits during sickness and death. Discussions arose and frequent quarrels took place until finally a project of dissolving the association was suggested, on December 8th, 1880. At this time the lodge had accumulated a. fund of about $1,000. A notice was sent to all the members, then numbering thirty-one, to be present at the meeting 0» March 16, 1881. Twenty were present. The by-laws provided that eleven should be a quorum. A motion to dissolve the society and divide the funds equally among the members, was then made; and those who were in favor of so doing were asked to rise. Fourteen rose. Then those opposed to disbanding were asked to rise, and none rose. The majority considered the society disbanded. The minority, consisting of seven members, received new books, pass word, &c., and claim?, they are the society. The minority then filed a bill in equity to prevent the dissolution of the society and the distribution of the money. After the appointment of a master and taking of testimony, the Court dismissed the bill. Fietta Schollenberger and others then appealed.</p>

1, of Philadelphia County. No. 157 Term, 1884. On May 1st, 1884,, the firm of Dippy & Sigfried confessed a •judgment in favor of Hunter & Drennan, which was entered, and an attachment execution was issued on May 29, 1884, with notice to Ebenez'er Adams as garnishee.

' Schwartz and Mansbach obtained a judgment against William Kunkle and John Reifsnider. Zern, Carr and John Reif•snider had a contract to enlarge the county jail. Schwartz and Mansbach issued an attachment execution upon their judgment against John Kyner et al. vs. County, Commissioners, garnishee. Upon the trial the Court reversed a question of law whether the attachment would lie. The verdict was for the plaintiffs-for $250.73.

3 of Philadelphia County. No. 94 January Term, 1884. This case was referred to G. M. Dallas, Esq., as referee under the Act of May 14, 1874, and his report and decision was as follows: This action has been submitted to my decision under the Act -of May 14, 1874, by agreement in writing duly filed of record -in the office of the Prothonotary of the court in which the suit is pending, where also there has been duly filed my acceptance of the office of Referee and the…

of Luzerne County. No. 292 January Term, 1881. George Reiss, in 1870, owned a lot of ground, 96 feet in front, in Wilkesbarre, on which stood a building divided into three dwellings. He, on January 28, 1871, entered into three agreements with Jacob Hochberg, George Gerstle and John Froelich, respectively, to sell each 32 feet of this lot. As the building did not stand on all three lots, the men drew straws for choice of lots.

In Equity. No. 12, January Term, 1880. The facts of the case are set forth in the opinion of the Court below, which was as follows, per: The plaintiffs in these… Held: where a cashier of the deposit bank, not a bank of issue, had sold certain stock there could be no recovery, the sale having been, made by such cashier in violation of the banking laws of 1850. In the case of Young vs; Robertson, 6 Ph. Rep. 184, Judge Sharswood again applied the banking act of 1850.

May Term, 1874. Amanda Sidle, wife of John Sidle, inherited money from her father, and purchased a farm in York County. She sold it to Jacob Arnold on April 2, 1858, by deed, in which her husband joined; but it was not, apparently, acknowledged by her, as required by, the Act of February 24, 1770. Arnold entered into possession of it, and paid some of the purchase money to John Sidle, who bought a lot of ground in Dillsburg, Pa., and paid for it with his wife’s money.

No. 186 November Term 1874. The Sheriff levied and sold the personal property of Palmer & Childs, a firm composed of D. Palmer, J. Childs, and L.- M., Childs. The Sheriff also had at the time of sale, an execution on a judgment obtained by tlie First National Bank of Corry,,' against J. & L. M. Childs.

120 July Term, 1882. In this case an auditor reports as follows : The material facts set out in the petition, briefly stated are : That Charles Koonce, husband of the petitioner, died on September 17th, 1880, having first made his last will, which-was probated September 27th, 1880, of which Samuel C. Koonce, William H. Koonce and G. W. Phillips are executors.

242, October and November Term, 1877. This was an action of ejectment brought by Mrs. Isabella Sharp and Mrs. Eliza Clark against the Western Pennsylvania Railroad Company for a lot of ground in Sharpsville, on a part of which said company had erected their depot. The Pennsylvania Canal, when built, had passed through the land of James Sharp, who was the father of the plaintiffs. At the point where the premises are situated, a lock had been constructed.

1, of Philadelphia county, No. 129 July Term, 1884. This was an action by James S. Brooks, against the Knickerbocker Ice Company, to recover damages for having run over his female child. The child was five years of age at the time of the accident, and was passing from Miller’s grocery store, on the southwest corner of Eighteenth and Reed streets, to the drug store on the southeast corner.

No. 220 January Term, 1882. Error to Court of Common Pleas, No. 2, of Phiiladelpha county. The facts of the case appear in an opinion refusing a rule to take of a non suit filed by The main outline of facts can be very briefly stated. A large excavation was made under the pavement in front of defendant’s store for the purpose of putting in new boilers.

No. 399 January Term, 1867. Error to Common Pleas of Northampton county, Ferdinand Krieg was a passenger from Reading to New York ■city on the afternoon of November 3rd, 1863. The train stopped at Easton at the Lehigh Valley depot 10 or 15 minutes, and Krieg went to the refreshment room and got some oysters. Afterwards he came out, and desiring to urinate he-looked for the water closet. The night was dark and misty, and the platform was not lighted up.

296, January Term, 1884. On June 16, 1883, Gotthard Mohry recovered a judgment against David T. Horlacher, and issued attachment execution with notice to Tilghman R. Kline, as garnishee, and obtained service on him the same day. On the trial it was proved that Kline had bought a pair of horses from Horlacher and the balance due thereon was $350. Kline made defense that on June 7,1883, he had purchased a claim of Sylvester Bieber against David Horlacher amounting to $344.58..

4, of Philadelphia County, No. 107 January Term, 1883. This case arose upon a case stated as follows : Philip Hamberg became a member of Ashland Encampment, No. 45, I. O. O. F., above-named, a beneficial organization, November 5th, 1849. His dues were sixteen cents per week ; they were paid in full to September 6th, 1880, except twelve cents, He was taken sick on December 20th, 1880. On January 17th, 1881, he paid five dollars.

3 of Philadelphia County, No. 167 January Term, 1890. This was an action before a Magistrate, by D. M. Kreamer against J. Purvis and J. Neils, for milk sold and delivered to Purvis, for whom Neils was surety. Judgment for plaintiff, and execution, and return of “no goods.” Plaintiff filed a transcript in the Court of Common Pleas No. 3, fi. fa. issued, property of defendant “levied and condemned,” and vend. ex. issued.

23 July Term, 1883. The following is the adjudication upon the account of John McMenamin and Patrick McHugh, guardians of Ellen Quinn, a minor. The objections to the account will now be considered. First. As to the charge made against the minor for her board and washing. Under the evidence, this claim cannot, be allowed, as it was clearly shown to be an after-thought of the accountant who made the charge.

No. 402 January Term, 1885. Error to Common Pleas of 'Schuylkill County. The facts of the case appear in the opinion, per Pule to show cause why judgment '■ of non-suit should not be set aside. The plaintiff instituted this suit to recover a part of the pur•chase money paid to the defendants as the consideration of a certain timber right. He claims he purchased said right by the acre and paid for more acres than the tract actually contains.

233 January Term, 1884. The plaintiff, Margaret Siginesky, a minor, worked for defendant, D. P. Kinney, for over two years. She brought suit for her wages.before Wm. Morgan, Justice of the Peace, and judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff for $218.17.

103 January Term, 1885. On the 24th of December, 1883, Charles Hapgood of Easton, went to Scranton at the urgent request of Stoddard & Co., to consider a proposition by the latter for the sale to him of their stock and good will as shoe dealers. The bargain was closed, the purchase being made at a full price for cash.

1 of Philadelphia County; No. 48 January Term, 1882. This was an action on the case for services as nurse rendered to plaintiff, for twelve weeks at $10 per week.

1 of Philadelphia County, No. 124 July Term, 1880. On January 4, 1879, Henry M. Richards obtained a judgment for $l,4--0.90 against the Girard Mutual Building and Loan Association.

4 of Philadelphia County, No. 79 January Term, 1883. The charge of the Court was as follows, per Gentlemen —The facts of this case are very plain. Cap. tain Cullberg called upon Mr. Workman, desiring a freight for his vessel, with the understanding that if the broker secured him a cargo, he would pay him a commision for his services.

1 of Philadelphia County, No. 18 January Term, 1881. J. Gould’s Sons issued an attachment against Hibberd & Co. under the Act of March 17, 1869, and gave a bond in the sum of $730. The attachment was dissolved by the Court upon failure to prove fraud. The plaintiff then filed a copy of the book entries upon which the claim was founded, amounting to $363.17. Wm.

4 of Philadelphia County, No. 60 July Term, 1884. Joseph Struwe had been expelled from the Kensington Beneficial Society, and petitioned for a mandamus. The society answered, and Struwe demurred.

No. 278 January Term, 1880. Appeal from Common Pleas Pleas of Berks County. In Equity.

<p>When a municipal corporation prevents a contractor from fulfilling his contract, he has a remedy by an action for damages, but he cannot enjoin the Commissioner of Highways from cleaning the streets.</p>

2, of Philadelphia County, No. 32, January Term, 1883. This was an appeal by Henry G. Harris, a garnishee, from the decree of the Court of Common Pleas No. 2, dismissing his exceptions to the taxation of costs. In the case of Wainwright and Bryant vs. Moores et al. defendants, H. G. Harris et al., garnishees. At the time of the service of the attachment, Moores were building houses, and had borrowed from Harris large sums, upon the security of mortgages on the houses.

396 January Term, 1883. This was an action of debt in the Court below to recover the amount of a policy of insurance.

83 July Term, 1884. Executions were issued on judgments obtained against French and McKnight; and their personal property was sold by F. E. Staples, the Sheriff of Erie county, at auction for $3,521.53. A dispute having arisen as to who was entitled to • fund, the execution creditors ruled it into Court, and had an auditor appointed to distribute, who refused to allow the-sheriff any poundage, under the Act of June 12, 1878, P. Laws, 187.

211 January Term, 1884. Mrs. Sydney Connell died testate leaving most of her property to Joshua M. Dushane. Mrs. Connell’s brothers and sisters united together audhad the will set aside. Joseph Cole-.stock was appointed administrator of his sister, Mrs. Connell, and the fund was paid to him, Upon an audit of the estate, the sum of $1,786.11 was awarded to Elizabeth Gilmore, a sister of Mrs. Connell.

137 January Term, 1881. This was ail action on a recognizance given to secure the other heirs of Simon P. Guldin. Arbitration proceedings were begun; and award of $76.46 in favor of the plaintiff was entered on February 6, 1880. On February 26th, 1880, defendant appealed. On October 23 ,1880, the defendants took a rule to strike off the arbitration procee dings, because no declaration had been filed; which rule was discharged on December 27,1880.

172 July Term, 1874. This was a summons in assumpsit brought by Charles N. Beckel against Oliver Weikel and Anton Spogen, partners, trading as Weikel & Spogen, upon the following note : $309 Bethlehem, Penna., March 15, 1882. Ninety days after date we promise to pay to the order of C. N. Beckel, attorney, at the First National Bank of Bethlehem, Three Hundred and Nine 20-100 Dollars, without defalcation, for value received. Weikel & Spogen. Credit the drawer. Chas.

8 January Term, 1881. Jonas Wesner loaned Moses Stein $460 and took his note, With Amos Greenawalt as surety. Afterwards Stein became ■embarrassed and confessed various judgments on the same day, which were duly entered up, and his property sold for a sum insufficient to pay the claims against it.

2, of Philadelphia County, No. 280 January Term, 1884. This was an action brought by Elizabeth Kier against E. C. Quin, Esq., to recover $169.23, which she alleges she was unjustly compelled to pay by reason of defendant’s misconduct. AVm. Kier borrowed $600 of the Homeward Building Association and gave a mortgage for that amount. He died soon after, and his widow, Elizabeth Kier, continued to make pay-meats until 1881.

<p>A party can not recover damages from the opposing attorney unless .he has acted illegally and corruptly or maliciously.</p>

3, of Philadelphia County, No. 25 July Term, 1884. This was an action of trespass on the case brought by Amelia G. Johnston against Bobert A. Given, J. M. Gemmill, Paul Graff and Bebecea I. V. Graff, for conspiracy and causing plaintiff to be placed in a lunatic asylum. Lunacy proceedings were instituted July 25, 1863; inquisition was taken .and report filed August 8th, 1868, and confirmed August 15th, 1868.

306 January Term, 1883. Daniel B. Fisher was the owner of certain real estate in the* city of Reading. On the 29th day of May, 1877, the city filed a lien for city taxes, upon said property, to No. 151 May Term, 1877, City Lien Docket, for $40.19. On the same day a lien was also filed by the Reading School District, for school tax,, to No. 112 May Term, 1877, for $20.19. Three days later, 1st June, 1877, Daniel B. Fisher gave a mortgage for $2,000 to.

14 July-Term, 1884. B. J. Morningstar was arrested for throwing cajmnne pepper-in H. J. Dreyer’s face, and taken before a Justice of the Peace- The facts of the case appear in the opinion of the Court.. whicn was as follows : Per Curiam. The information before the Justice charged Morningstar with assault and battery only. On appearing before the Justice he plead guilty to that» charge.

352 and 353 January Term, 1884. Edvard Lyon obtained at various times five notes signed by Griffith Phillips, and had judgments entered thereon. TheMuncy Bank obtamed a judgment for $50,000 against Edward Lyon and issued attachment execution with notice to Phillips-Phillips applied for a rule to open the judgments on the-ground of fraud and that he had paid all money actually due. The Court opened three of the judgments, but discharged the-rule as to the other two.

3, of Philadelphia County, No. 126 July Term, 1882. This was a petition filed by the Commonwealth ex. rel. Azel Ames, Jr., trading as the National Odorless Excavating Company, for an alternative mandamus to the Board of Health, requiring them to issue a license to clean privies, &c., upon payment of the license fee.

99 July Term, 1884. Mrs. Samuel Clark borrowed from Patrick Quinn $106 on August 31st, 1875. He boarded with her at the time. On June 12, 1879, he entered up the note, and issued execution thereon on January 29,1881. Certain goods levied on were-claimed as belonging to her husband’s estate.

46, July Term, 1884. In Equity. The facts of the case appear in the opinion of the Court, which was as follows, per The plaintiff, on September 5, 1881, obtained a decree in equity against the defendant for the sum of $333.15 and costs. Nov. 11, 1881, an execution attachment was issued to ■attach all monies in the hands of the Pennsylvania Railroad 'Company, the writ being returnable the first Monday in February, 1882. This writ was served on the defendant November 23, 1881.

112 January Term, 1883. The charge of the Court was as follows, per Gentlemen of the Jury : — This is a civil action brought by W. W. Scranton', against Aaron A. Chase to recover damages for an alleged libel, injurious to his character. The law provides this mode as the only one for the redress of an individual wronged by a slander, or by a libel spoken or publishsd of him.

1, of Philadelphia County. No. 311 January Term, 1883. In the spring of 1881 William Wilkinson owned a property, No. 1202 South Seventeenth street, in Philadelphia, and entered into a written contract with William Thompson & Brother, who were builders, to repair and improve the prop■erty for $1,350. During the work, the adjoining property, No. 1204, owned by Mary E. Bradley, wife of James Bradley, was injured by reason of the repairs.

No. 58 October and November Term, 1874. . Ezra Cooper agreed to lend Hubbell money, and gave him part cash and his note for the balance; taking a mortgage for the amount upon Hubbell’s property. Hubbell transferred the note to Nelson Waters, who held a judgment against Hub-bell, with the agreement that it should be credited upon the judgment when paid.

1, of Philadelphia County. No. 428 January Term, 1884. On January 18, 1877, Wm. G. Roberts conveyed a certain lot of ground to Wm. Hoppell, Jr. This suit was brought by Robert B. Hutchinson against Wm. Hopple, Jr., to recover six months’ ground rent accruing from January 1st to July 1st, 1882, from the aforesaid lot. Hopple entered pleas that there was no personal liability on his part, since the Act of June 12, 1878, P. Laws, 205.

No. 50, May Term, 1878. This case was formerly tried and taken to the Supreme Court, where the judgment in favor of Pentz was reversed on the ground that the evidence showed plaintiff in possession of the land at the time the ejectment was brought; see 26 P. F. Smith, 57. The case was again tried and the judge gave the jury binding instructions to find for the defendant.

No. 90 November Term, 1874. There was an action of trespass brought by Andrew J. Nichols against Dingman and others to recover damages for selling certain goods claimed by Nichols at Sheriff’s sale as the property of Samuel Lipton. It appeared that Lipton, a storekeeper, being indebted to various creditors, sold his whole stock of goods to Nichols, receiving $50 in cash, and notes of Nichols for $850, payable in future, and then absconded.

No. 182 January Term, 1883. Error to Common Pleas No. '2, of Philadelphia County. This was an action of assumpsit brought by the Bridge* 'port Brass Co. against Isaiah Rudy. The Hydro-Carbon Heating Company contemplated putting on the market a patient heater for heating soldering irons. Its officers had entered into negotiations with the Bridgeport Brass Co. for their manufacture.

No. 298, January Term, 1884. This was an appeal from a decree of the Orphans’ Court, dismissing John B. Grissinger from the office of Administrator of Joseph Henry, dec’d. The facts of the case appear in the opinion of the Court,, which was as follows, per This matter is before us on petition, answers and testimony. A large portion of the testimony is of a documentary character. Much of this testimony is irrelevant to the issues in question in this case.

No. 406 January Term, 1883. This was a proceeding before a justice of the peace to obtain possession of real estate sold at sheriff’s sale. B. H. Lesher had purchased a piece of land by agreement from Ario Pardee, but had not paid the installments. On January 28, 1878, Alfred Lesher purchased this equitable interest from B. H. Lesher, and paid Pardee, and received a deed from Pardee on May 6, 1878.

No. 22, July Term, 1884. These were two actions of assumpsit brought by R. F. Brown and F. A. Lonehower against Amelia A1 right, executrix of L. F. Albright, deceased. The facts appear in the opinion of the Court, sustaining a demurrer to a special plea, per These two cases are controlled by the same principles. The plaintiffs respectively seek to recover the amount of certain notes drawn by the testator in his lifetime in their favor.

1, of Philadelphia County. No. 424 January Term, 1884. The facts of the case appear in the following portions of the charge of the Court. This is an action brought to recover damages sustained in an accident caused, as alleged, by the Northern Liberties Gas-Company not keeping in repair their pipes for the conveyance-of gas, so that an explosion occurred at the house owned by the plaintiff, and injured his property.

No. 110, November Term, 1878. This was an action of ejectment brought by Emma M. Perry, sole heir of John F. Perry, against Hugh Perry to recover two lots of ground. The plaintiff alleged that John F. Perry conveyed the two lots to Hugh Perry, under a parol agreement that he should pay certain debts of John P. Perry, and after he was reimbursed from the rents, or paid otherwise, he would reconvey the same.

In Equity. No. 407, January Term, 1883. This was a bill in Equity for an injunction to restrain Phineas Leiser from proceeding to obtain possession of a certain property bought at sheriff’s sale, and to restrain waste.

No. 345, January Term, 1884. Error to Common Pleas of Clinton County. On February 21st, 1874, Bridget Gallagher was adjudged insane and sent to the asylum at Danville. The County of Clinton had been charged with and paid her maintenance. On August 3, 1880, a rule was taken upon the City of Lock Haven to show cause why the Poor District of the city should not be certified as the place of Bridget Gallagher’s last settlement. On June 25, 1881, the rule was made absolute.

2 and 3, May Term, 1874. The facts appear in the opinion of the Court, which was delivered on April 19, 1873, by At April Term, 1872, petitions were presented to this Court asking for the appointment of proper persons to view, widen and extend Diamond Alley in this city. Viewers were appointed, notice was given, and those persons who now ask the Court to -set aside the report attended the view.

<p>Widening a street should be under the same kind of proceedings as-opening a street.</p> <p>Three viewers only are necessary in road cases in Lancaster County.</p>

3, of Philadelphia County, No. 91, July Term, 1884. This was an action brought by John P. Logan against George DeB. Keim, Sheriff of Philadelphia County.

2 of Philadelphia County. No. 206, January Term, 1882. By Act of April 3, 1873, L- Laws, 504, Chestnut street in the City of Philadelphia was opened from Forty-second to Fifty-sixth street. In accordance with this act certain paving was done, and a lien was filed against Elizabeth Rule, under the frontage rule for work done in 1876. A seire facias was issued on this claim, which resulted in favor of d'efendant;'see 93 Pa., 15.

No. 35, January Term, 1877. - This was an action brought by an Insurance Company ■against a member to recover an assessment on a premium note levied in Jnauary, 1875. Upon the trial in June, 1876, the Insurance Company offered in evidence a certificate of the amount due, signed by the secretary and attested by the seal of the company, as provided by section 8 of the Act of February 25th, i860, P. Laws, 83.

Nos. 384, January Term, and 8, July Term, 1884. The plaintiff in error is a resident qf Crawford County, and was, at the time these suits were brought, engaged as a contract- or drilling oil wells in Warren County. He had several men in his employ, and among them were Richards & Covanhoven, the defendants in error, and David Hola, who was his foreman. He was indebted to Richards and Covanhoven for a balance on-their wages, and Covanhoven assigned his claim to Richards.

<p>Error to Common Pleas of Warren County. Nos. 384, January Term, and 8, July Term, 1884.</p> <p>The plaintiff in error is a resident qf Crawford County, and was, at the time these suits were brought, engaged as a contract- or drilling oil wells in Warren County. He had several men in his employ, and among them were Richards & Covanhoven, the defendants in error, and David Hola, who was his foreman. He was indebted to Richards and Covanhoven for a balance on-their wages, and Covanhoven assigned his claim to Richards. Claiming that Richards was indebted to his as much, or more, than the amount of both claims Richards had against him, he refused to pay him. Richards' brought a suit against Sargeant and Holt, his foreman, as partners in both these claims, before R. Schnur, Esq., on a long summons, and service was had upon Holt alone, who was the person he wanted to hold. Sargent was not served, as appears by the transcript. On the return day, May 21, 1883, Holt appeared, and Sargent being a material witness, Holt made and filed an affidavit with the Justice that Sargent was a material witness, and resided in Crawford County, and the case was continued to the 2d of June to allow. Holt an opportunity of subpoenaing Sargent, or getting his •deposition. At the adjourned hearing Sargent was in attendance as a witness without any knowledge that he was a party, .and the case having been tried, judgment was given against him alone. The claims, as presented, were for wages, and the Justice demanded bail for the debt before he would allow an appeal, and Sergent being unable to appeal had a writ of certiorari issued from the Common Pleas in each case. In support of some of the exceptions, the deposition of Sargent was taken by agreement when these cases were reached on the argument list. The Court below, believing these cases came under the 7th sec. of the Act of March, 1870, providing for jury trials before Justices, and that the only remedy for Sargent was an appeal from the judgments of the Justice, quashed both writs, ■and afterward refused to rescind the order quashing the writs.</p> <p>The records were returned to the Justice, and executions were issued by him to a constable, and the property of Sargent was sold at a sacrifice.</p> <p>Sargent then took these writs of error, complaining that the Court erred in quashing the writs of certiorari, and in not reversing the proceedings of the Justice.</p>

Im Equity. No. 98, January Term, 1883. John T. Morgan borrowed money of the National Building-Association, giving security. Afterwards there was a dispute as to the amount due, and Morgan took a rule to open the-judgment. Pending this rule, Morgan paid the Receiver of the: association $356.38 and took the following receipt: In Common Pleas of Lackawanna County, No. 573, April T., 1881.

No. 92, July Term, 1881. Appeal from the Common Pleas of Luzerne County. G. L. Buskirk and Henry Shook were administrators of James Buskirk. G. L. Buskirk purchased various articles at the administrators’ sale and gave two notes amounting to '$623.76 to the administrators in payment.

<p>No. 92, July Term, 1881.</p> <p>Appeal from the Common Pleas of Luzerne County.</p> <p>G. L. Buskirk and Henry Shook were administrators of James Buskirk. G. L. Buskirk purchased various articles at the administrators’ sale and gave two notes amounting to '$623.76 to the administrators in payment. Afterwards the administrators filed an account, and paid over, in 1872, to John Myers, guardian of the two minor children of James Buskirk, certain notes amounting to about $1,000, as the estate of his wards. Myers advanced money to his wards and took the notes himself. One note, given by Samuel Streepy to James Buskirk, for $300, was collected by John Myers. G. L. BusLirk swore that the Streepy note was given by mistake. Myers swore that it was part of the $1,000 which accounted for. G. L. Buskirk’s notes were renewed- from time to time, and on January 22, 1877, a judgment for $1,072.76 was entered upon a judgment note given by G. L. Buskirk to John Myers, who assigned it to D. E. Bell. Execution was issued in 1881, and then G. L. Buskirk took a rule to open the judgment, alleging that he was entitled to credit on account of the Streepy note. The Court discharged the rule to open the judgment on June 18, 1881, in the following opinion by</p> <p>The rule in this case must be discharged; a mere conflict of testimony between the parties, plaintiff and defendant, themselves, will not as a general rule, justify us in opening a judgment. In this instance the defendant’s testimony is not sufficiently distinct to warrant any relaxation of the rule. See Earley’s Appeal, 90 Penna., 322.</p> <p>Buskirk then appealed.</p>

No. 117, January Term, 1883. The charge of the Court was as follows, per This is an action 011 the case, brought by Henry M. Rhodes, the plaintiff, against the township of Rockefeller, defendent, to recover damages by reason of an injury that he alleges he sustained on the morning of the 12th of March, 1881, in consequence, as he alleges, of the negligence of the township in not keeping in good order and repair a certain public highway ,in that township.

2, of Philadelphia County. No. 123, July Term, 1884. In July, 1S81, the firm of Steck & Paschall, engaged in the morocco manufacturing business, were indebted to various-parties to the amount of about $54,000. Anthony Elton being a creditor for about $51,000. In 1879 Steck & Paschall had borrowed $900 from H. B. Perkenpine and had made a. payment thereon, reducing the debt to $804.50.

<p>An assignment to a trustee for tlie benefit of a part of the assign- or’s creditors must be recorded.</p>

2, of Philadelphia County. No. 131, January Term, 1884. The charge of the Court was as follows: The plaintiff, Mr. Breslin, is engaged in the wholesale business. Edward Boyle, during his lifetime, and afterwards his wife, the defendant, were retail liquor dealers.

Common Pleas No. 4, of Philadelphia County. No. 136, July Term, 1884. This was an action brought by Richard Peterson, executor of P. S. Peterson, deceased, against the Guarantee Trust and Safe Deposit Company.

5½ January Term, 1874. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the Court below which is as follows, delivered July 21, 1873, by The material facts in the case are as follows: James T. Wren, John T. Noble and Matthew Rhoda in ¡July, 1870, made an agreement by which they became, partners, under the firm name of James Wren & Co., for the erection of a furnace for the Emaus Iron Company and for no other purpose. Of this firm Mr. Wren was the treasurer.

4 of Philadelphia County. Nos. 102 and 103, January, 1883. This case arose upon an attachment execution. The facts of the case are set forth in the charge of the Court, which was as follows, per: “What is contended for here is the ownership of thirteen hundred shares of stock in the Algonquin Company, that being a Montana mining company. Dr. James Fuller was thé owner of the stock. It stood in his name on the books of the company.

Error of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County. No. 171, January Term, 1883. This was an action of tresspass upon the case brought by Patrick Garrett to recover damages Lr the death of his son, Thomas Garrett, who was crushed to death by the monkey rollers at defendant’s Spring Brook Colliery. Thomas Garrett, aged 11 years 5 months, was employed to pick slate from the schute leading to the monkey rollers. Two other boys worked between Garrett and the rollers.

<p>Declarations of an agent made two days after the accident, are inadmissible to charge the principal with negligence.</p> <p>The failure to have an engineer who might have stopped the monkey rolls in time to 'have saved the life of an employee who fell between the rolls does not render the employer liable.</p>

No. 373, January Term, 1884. This case came before the Court upon exceptions to the Auditors’ Report. The facts as gathered from the Auditors’ Report and the arguments of counsel are as follows; viz : George Peiffer, the decedent, died in Marion township in 1877, testate: His will, dated August 4, 1873, was duly probated November 26, 1877. and letters testamentary granted to Henry H. Miller.

<p>Appeal from Orphans’ Court of Berks County. No. 373, January Term, 1884.</p> <p>This case came before the Court upon exceptions to the Auditors’ Report.</p> <p>The facts as gathered from the Auditors’ Report and the arguments of counsel are as follows; viz : George Peiffer, the decedent, died in Marion township in 1877, testate: His will, dated August 4, 1873, was duly probated November 26, 1877. and letters testamentary granted to Henry H. Miller. Tho testator died seised of considerable property, roa1, and personal. líe directed his executor to sell the real estate, and then, after bequeathing several specific legacies, he gave all the rest and residue of and the remainder of his property “to his nine nephews and nieces, viz: Augustus Burkholder, George Burkholder, Lucy Arnold and Caroline Gruber, children of Daniel Burkholder, deceased; Franklin Reed, Almon Reed, Thomas Reed and Mary Fisher, children of Daniel B. Reed and Henrietta Kline, wife of John Kline and daughter of John J. Reed, deceased; to my cousins Catharine Peiffer, Eliza Rankin and Mary Shannon, of Philadelphia, and to William Miller and his sister, Mary Buck, of Lebanon; and to my friend, Richard Lechner and his sister, Elizabeth Gockley, share and share alike.” The executor sold the real estate and converted the personality into money in the fall of 1878. He filed his present account on August 22, 1879. in which he charged himself with $18,582.52 — $10,971.52 as realized from the sale of real estate, and the balance from personalty, including $1,800 advanced to certain residuary legatee. He claimed credit (including $1,000 for commissions) amounting to $8,799.87, leaving a balance due the estate of $9,852.65. No exceptions wrere filed to this account. The Court on the 26th of March, 1881, appointed J. Lawrence Getz, Esq., to report distribution, whose report was confirmed nisi January 12, 1882. Before making distribution the Auditor allowed executor credits for several undisputed claims paid since the filing of the account. * * * The third class of exceptions by the residuary legatees complains because the Auditor did not charge the executor with interest upon the monies in his hands. The Auditor finds that the executor discharged his duties faithfully and was not guilty of delaying the settlement of the estate, and that he had made no profits out of the trust funds. The question here arises whether the findings of the Auditor are justified from the evidence submitted to him. What was the purport of that evidence ?</p> <p>The accountant was the chief witness called by the except* ants. He testified that such of the funds as were deposited he had in his own name with his own account in bank, at the Farmers’ National Bank in Reading. He also testified lie made no interest out of these funds and that he realized no profits from them in any way. John H. Maltzberger, a clerk of said bank, was called, who testified from the books of the bank and submitted a copy of accountant’s individual accounts with said bank, from which it clearly appears that during the time of his administration his account does not show a deposit equal to the amount of trust funds in his hands. Under this evidence it is contended on the part of the exceptants that the Auditor should have found that he perjured himself, realized interest and profits out of the funds or that he had used them in his own business. This the Auditor did not so see. He found the facts as the accountant had stated them.</p> <p>There was no other testimony on this point before the Auditor, nor w as there any evidence before him tending to throw discredit on the witnesses’ veracity. It was. contended before me that because the executor had deposited some of these funds in bank with his own he had mingled them and was, therefore, ipso facto liable to the payment of interest. I cannot so hold the law, but even were the law such he could not be held since the only proof on this point is that he realized no interest or profit from any funds belonging to the estate. Had the exceptant, with evidence outside of himself, proved that he had mingled the funds with his own, the legal inference would have been that he had made profits for himself by it. Such can, however, not be inferred from this testimony, which is that he made no interest by depositing it with his own. This finding of the Auditor is, therefore, confirmed and the exceptions on this point dismissed.</p> <p>Exceptants also urge that accountant should have been charged with part of the auditing expenses. A careful examination of the testimony and proceedings generally before the Auditor do not impress me with the propriety of sustaining the exception. Hence the came is dismissed.</p> <p>Two of the exceptions in the interest of the residuary legatees object to the accountants’ compensation as contained in ¡the account, and to the additional sum of $500 allowed him by the Auditor for services rendered since the filing of the account. Nearly §11,000, on the debit side of the account, were realized from the sale of real estate, and the balance, a little less than $7,700, are from personalty. The ordinary commission on funds out of real estate, for services, for the sale- and the disbursement of moneys, should not exceed three percent. In this case should not have been over $330 on the real estate and 5 per cent., or $385, on the personalty. $715-would have been the ordinary compensation. He charged $1,000 in his account. Upon an examination of the proceedings before the Auditor, and the evidence there submitted to-prove the value of services rendered by the executor in the-settlement of this estate, do not, in my opinion, establish the-fact that more than ordinary services were required. It is true that several actions were necessary to adjudicate doubtful claims, but there should have been no necessity for certain of the creditors to obtain their moneys due them on bonds, to institute suit for the recovery of the same. There was no reason for contesting such claims, nor can the executor claim any merit for not paying the same until after the residuary legatees were mulcted in heavy bills of costs and accountant’s attorneys fees, as w'ell as additional interest, unless collateral estates are considered prey like common carrion to be devoured by vampires and vultures.</p> <p>If it were not that this account became absolute without exceptions thereto, and the appointment by the Court of an auditor thereon to report distribution, I might consider the reduction of his compensation charged in the account; but considering the Auditor’s appointment and my power to review his report, I cannot support the exception seeking to reduce accountant’s compensation of $1,000. In consideration that the accountant credited himself with more compensation than he was legally entitled to, and inasmuch as he, through his-negligence, did not pay certain of the creditors after he had all the estate reduced into money, until suits were instituted and judgment obtai ned, together with large bills of expenses-for attorneys fees and costs, as well as additional interests, I sustain this exception and thereby disallow the said additional commission of $500.</p> <p>Eliza Rankin and others then appealed, assigning the action of the Court in not cha rging the accountant with interest and a portion of the costs of audit.</p>

3 of Philadelphia County. No. 183, January Term, 1884. The assignments of error were as follows: 1. The learned Judge erred in charging the jury in such a manner as to control the verdict and leave no chance for the •defendant. 2. The learned Judge in his charge to the jury went beyond the recognized limits in commenting upon the evidence and giving his opinion of the case. 3.

No. 254, November Term, 1874. Edward Heazelton, being largely indebted to J. B. Canfield, took the benefit of the. bankrupt act, and was discharged on March 9th, 1868. After his discharge, he again commenced business, and Canfield bought a large amount of goods from him, for which Heazelton never demanded payment, but directed his clerk to balance the account without receiving any money, for the purpose of paying the old claim.

No. 207, January Term, 1883. The affidavit of defense in this case was as follows: Henry Johnston, of the firm of Adam Johnston & Son, the defendants in the above suit, being duly sworn according to law, deposes that they have a just and legal defence to the whole of the plaintiffs’ claim, the nature and character of which is as follows: The defendants having entered into a contract with the Little-Rock, Mississippi and Texas Railway Company, in the summer of 1881, for the…

1 of Philadelphia County. No. 144, July Term, 1884. Ths was an action of trover and conversion to recover the value of certain railroad tics, brought by Brooks and George .against William A. Levering. The charge of the Court and ■answers to points were as follows, per This was an action of trover and conversion to recover damages for the conversion of the property, of one man to the use of another. If a man converts my property to his own use I have an action against him.

No. 170, July Term, 1884. This case, arose upon the audit of the second account of The Fidelity Insurance, Trust and Safe Deposit Company, Trustees under the will of Sarah Horstmann, deceased. Sarah Horstmann, the decedent, died ai widow in 1855, leaving to survive her six children, William J. Horstmann, Sigmund H. Horstmann, George Henry Horstmann, Emma Thibault, Lavinia Patterson and Henrietta G. Horstmann.

No. 31, July Term, 1884. This was an action of replevin for certain articles distrained for rent. The charge of the Court was as follows, per: Mr. Butterfield, the plaintiff in this case, was in possession of certain premises in Bradford city, in this county, as a tenant of these defendants, under a lease by which he agreed to pay certain rents.

No. 336 January Term, 1883. This was an action for painting and glazing the Pottsville Market House, brought by P. D. Helms against seven directors, individually, of the Market Plouse Association,… Held: and under what circumstances ? I think the true solution becomes easy upon reflection.

4 of Philadelphia County. No. 120, July Term, 1884. This was a suit brought by Henry C. Lea against the Union Transfer Company, and a case stated was agreed upon as follows : It is agreed that an amicable áction in the above form shall be entered as though a summons had been duly issued, and had been duly returned “served,” and that the following case be stated for the opinion and judgment of the court: On the 31st day of July, 1874, Albert Schwarz conveyed, in fee, to Sarah…

Appeals from Common Pleas of No. .1 of Philadelphia ■County. Nos. 82 and 83 of January Term, 1883. This was a case arising from the distribution of two funds which were produced by sales on first mortgages. The first mortgages were paid in full; and the funds were claimed by the Bolder of second mortgages; and also by the terre-tenant, the latter alleging that nothing was due on the second mortgage on account of usury.

No. 124, January Term, 1882. Albert Willis in his lifetime owned an individual half of lots. 21 and 22 in Souther’s Plan of Ridgeway, and made a- contract to sell the same to Salyer Jackson. In pursuance of this contract, and an order of the Orphans’ Court of Elk County, Carrie D. Willis, Administratrix of Albert Willis, made a deed, to Salyer Jackson, datéd March 21, 1872, for the property.

<p>Error to Common Pleas of Elk Comity. No. 124, January Term, 1882.</p> <p>Albert Willis in his lifetime owned an individual half of lots. 21 and 22 in Souther’s Plan of Ridgeway, and made a- contract to sell the same to Salyer Jackson. In pursuance of this contract, and an order of the Orphans’ Court of Elk County, Carrie D. Willis, Administratrix of Albert Willis, made a deed, to Salyer Jackson, datéd March 21, 1872, for the property. Salyer Jackson executed a mortgage to Carrie D. Willis for $600, balance of purchase money due, which was enetred for record on April 10th, 1872. Salyer Jackson conveyed the land to W. H. Schram and W. S. Service by deed dated October 17th, 1872. On March 12, 1875, Schram conveyed the undivided one-fourth to Service for $1, but it was alleged that Service was to pay the Willis mortgage. On November 5, 1875, Service conveyed the individual half to S. A. Olmstead. In the Spring of 1877 a scire facias was issued upon the Willis, mortgage, and a judgment obtained, and execution issued and the property was sold to W. H. Osterhout on November 18, 1878. S. A. Olmstead afterwards took a lease from Osterhout, and brought suit against Schram and Service upon the warrant in the deed. The Court refused to instruct the jury that the acknowledgment dated April 10th, 1872, invalidated, the mortgage recorded April 9th, 1872; but left it to the jury to determine what was the true date of the acknowledgment. The Court refused to instruct the jury that the sale by Service to Olmstead was fraudulent, but left the question to the jury.. The defendants also objected to the admission of the mortgage in evidence on the ground that there was no authority-shown for Carrie D. Willis to take the mortgage. The Court charged that if there was an eviction and Olmstead was not a party to any fraud, he could recover the amount of the money he paid with interest. On January 25, 1881, the jury rendered a verdict for plaintiff for $1,668.21. Defendants then took this writ of error.</p>

4 of Philadelphia County. No. 76, January Term, 1884. The Fidelity Insurance, Trust and Safe Deposit Company owned the premises 2010 North Broad Street, and sold the same to William S. Stokley by deed dated December 20, 1882. The plaintiff below, Wm.

No. 58 July Term, 1884. The facts of the case appear in the opinion of the Orphans’ Court, which was as follows, per: On March 18, 1884, a petition was presented by Mary Ann, Clara I., and Charles F.… Held: that the direction in the will to accumulate was void under the Act of 18 April, 1853. And the reasons for the increased allowance being approved, the additional allowance decreed; 8 Phil., 182; 25 Smi., 102.