DECEDENTS' ESTATES- Continued.

When a decedent has been dead for upwards of
twenty one years the Orphans' Court alone has power
to direct the issuing of letters of administration, but
the choice of the administrator is to be made by the
Register of Wills. (O. C.) Linder's Estate, 351.
Proceedings to compel an administrator de son tort
to surrender assets. (O. C.) Piening's Estate, 384.
Where an executor has continued a business under
directions of a testator contained in his will, the exec-
utor will not be held liable for losses incurred in the
business. Cline's Appeal, 104.

Under the Act of February 24, 1824, a surviving
executor has all the powers of all the executors, unless
a contrary intent is distinctly manifested upon the
face of the will. Lippincott v. Phila. Trust Co., 69.

An administrator d. b. n. c. t. a. will not be sur-
charged on an investment made in good faith by the
executor. (O. C.) Bentley's Estate, 160.

Where a mortgage has been foreclosed and the prop-
erty purchased by the estate, no loss to the estate has
been ascertained. Ib.

A clause in a will "that if it is necessary my here-
inafter-named executors shall have five years' time to
settle up my estate," will not enable sons who are ex-
ecutors, and amply able to pay obligations owed to
the estate by them to postpone payment of their
debts and a settlement of the estate for five years.
Riegel's Appeal, 56.

DECEDENTS' ESTATES—Continued.

When a guardian makes sale of a minor's interest
in real estate of a decedent under the Price Act, the
Court will direct the proceeds to be paid to the execu-
tor for the purpose of paying debts due by the dece-
dent. (O. C.) Yard's Estate, 422.

Incumbrances on land, when to be paid out of the
residuary estate of the testator. Eyre's Appeal,
295.

An administrator, who takes charge of real estate
and receives the rents and income thereof, is account-
able as agent to the heirs, and cannot be charged for
such rents in his account as administrator. Fross's
Appeal, 543.

The confirmation of the partial account of an admin-
istrator is conclusive only as to matters included in it
which have been adjudicated under it. Ib.

An account having been filed and an adjudication
held, it is discretionary with the Court to order the
filing of a subsequent partial account. (0. C.) John
L. Neill's Estate, 158.

When it is attempted to surcharge an administrator
with the amount of a claim which he has failed to coi-
lect, and he shows that the claim is not a sound one,
the burden is on the exceptants to prove that the
claim is collectable. In such case it is the duty of
the exceptants and not of the administrator to call the
debtor as a witness. Fross's Appeal, 543.

The evidence in this case held to show that a cer-

An administrator who has acted in good faith with-
out fraud or unfairness is, in some cases, entitled to
commissions, though he has acted negligently. Fross's
Appeal, 543.

render it proper to surcharge the administrator for
failing to collect. Ib.

When a testator, after providing for certain annui-
ties, leaves the residue of his estate to his widow
during her life, she is entitled to interest which has
accrued upon a debt due the estate between the date
of testator's death and the date of the collection of
the debt. Grim's Appeal, 273.

A testator by his will directed that the amounts due
him by his sons-in-law should be taken as advance-
ments by him to their several wives, held, that no in-

Ib.

A party who has been paid by an administrator the
amount of his claim against a decedent's estate, and
has given a receipt therefor to the administrator, is
incompetent to testify on the audit of the administra-
tor's account in support of the credit claimed by the
administrator as to the transactions between himself
and the decedent upon which his claim was based.
Fross's Appeal, 543.

sons-in-law to the testator. Ib.

Before a legatee a distributee is entitled to interest
or payment, a refunding bond must be tendered to
the executor. (0. C.) Brolasky's Estate, 31.
Discharge of administrator, when granted. (O. C.)
Arbuckle's E-tate, 304.

DECLARATIONS, as to pedigree. See Evi-
DENCE. Sitler v. Gehr, 193.

DEED. Signing by the grantor is essential to the
validity of a deed conveying real estate. Miller v.

Where a justice of the peace, in taking an acknow-
ledgment, subscribes himself “justice of the peace,'
the failure to mention the county is immaterial. There
is a presumption that he is of some county in the
State, and that is sufficient. Ross's Appeal, 217.

Under the Act of February 24, 1770, providing the
mode in which the separate real estate of a married
woman may be conveyed, both husband and wife
must sign as well as seal, acknowledge and deliver the
deed. Said Act is not repealed or modified in this re-
spect by the Act of April 11, 1848. Ib.

A deed purporting to convey real estate of a married

grantors, was prepared by the scrivener with scroll
seals, and with a form of acknowledgment by husband
and wife. The wife signed it, opposite one of the seals,
but the husband omitted to do so. Both husband and
wife acknowledged it, and it was duly delivered. Heid,
that the deed passed no title to the grantee. Ib.

DEED-Continued.

Deed of trust, when revoked by a will. Eyre's Ap-
peal, 295.

A contract for the sale of land, by articles of agree-
ment which expressly provide for a formal deed of con-
veyance, is executory, and upon the execution of such
deed, the contract becomes merged therein. Schenley
v. Pittsburgh, 262.

When the contract contained in the original agree-
ment is departed from in the deed, the presumption is
that it is done by consent of the parties in interest, and
for their mutual benefit. Ib.

Inasmuch as the grantee in a sheriff's deed of real
estate, takes the entire estate of the defendant in the
execution, words of inheritance are not necessary to
pass a fee to the sheriff's grantee. Middleton v. Mid-
dleton, 39.

A., by deed dated December 19, 1867, conveyed land
to B., and her children's children, their heirs and as-
signs; at the time of the execution of the deed B. had
no grandchildren. Held, that B. took either a fee sim-
ple or an estate tail, which latter estate by virtue of
the Act of April 27, 1855, became a fee simple. Ken-
nedy v. Humes, 508.

Construction of a deed containing a conditional lim-
itation. (C. P.) Creswell v. Grumbling, 93.

Where a deed conveyed certain lots described as
situate in a point formed by the junction of the two
rivers, Monongahela and Allegheny, and called for
these rivers as boundaries, but further conveyed and
identified the lots by describing and numbering them
as marked and numbered on a certain city plan, held,
that the location and extent of the lots was controlled
by the plan, and therefore that a plaintiff in ejectment,
claiming title under such deed, could not recover land
formed by accretions at or near the junction of the
rivers and beyond the lines of the lots as laid down on
the plan. Schenley v. Pittsburgh, 262.

An error in the courses and distances of land con-
veyed by a sheriff's deed which can be corrected by
reference to other deeds recited therein, is immaterial,
and does not prevent the passage to the grantee of a
good and marketable title. Middleton v. Middleton,
309.

Deed granting right of way into a cemetery con-
strued. (C. P.) Harper v. Greenmount Cemetery
Co., 172.

In deeds as well as wills, the intent of the grautor
is to be taken as the cardinal rule of construction.
Even technical words of limitation, found in an exe-
cuted conveyance, may be so qualified by the context
as to make them conform to the intention of the
grautor. Mergenthaler's Appeal, 441.

In order to create a vested remainder, not only must
the precedent estate be limited upon an event that
must certainly happen, and the person to whom the
remainder is limited be in esse, but such person must
be ascertained. Ib.

DEVIATION, effect of, on insurance.
PING. (U. S. C. C.) Ephraim and Auna, 15.
DEVISE. See WILL.

EASEMENT. Where an easement is granted to
be exercised within certain limits, and the grantor
openly exercises a privilege in excess of the limit con
tinuously and without interruption for twenty-one
years under claim of right, the law may presume a
second grant superadded to the first, covering the larger
right. Gehman v. Erdman, 278.

Construction of an easement to maintain a dam
and backing water.
Ib.

Injunction to protect a right of way into a cemetery.
(C. P.) Harper v. Greenmount Cemetery Co., 172.
Injunction to restrain interference with easement of
a flow of water. See EQUITY. Bitting's Appeal, 45.
EJECTMENT. When maintainable. (C. P.)
Cresswell v. Grumbling, 93.

Where the title to real estate is in dispute and no
special grounds for equitable relief, snch as irrepara-
ble damages, are disclosed, equity will not interfere
by injunction to restrain repeated and threatened
alleged trespass, until the rights of the parties have
been determined at law in an ejectment. Washburn's
Appeal, 101.

An injunction bill cannot be made the substitute for
an ejectinent. Lein nger's Appeal, 81.
Service of writ upon tenant in possession not named
in the writ. (C. P.) Nevins v. Manufacturing Com-
pany, 344.

See LAND. TAXES AND TAXATION. VENDOR AND
VENDEE.

ELECTIONS. Under the Registry law of
January 30, 1874, preliminary proof of his qualifi-
cations is necessary to constitute an unregistered
elector a legal voter. If the proof is not made
before the vote is received, it cannot be made on
the trial of a contested election so as to legalize the
vote. Such construction of the Act does not render
the same unconstitutional. In re Martin McDonough,

DIRECTORS of unincorporated association, when
not liable for losses. See PARTNERSHIP. Addams's Ap-
peal, 230.

DIVORCE. See HUSBAND AND WIFE.
DONATIO MORTIS CAUSA, what not suffi-
cient evidence to sustain. Fross's Appeal, 543.
DOWER. See HUSBAND AND WIFE.
DURESS, what not sufficient evidence of, to sup-
port action for money paid under alleged threats.
Union National Bank v. Dersham, 541.

A., the owner of land, averring that he had a right
by grant to have the water from a certain creek run at
certain times to his land through races on the land of
B., filed a bill in equity praying for au injunction to
restrain B. from obstructing the flow of water through
the races; on demurrer to the bill, held that a Court
of Equity would take jurisdiction. Ib.

Where the title to real estate is in dispute, and no
special grounds for equitable relief, such as irreparable
damage or the like are disclosed, equity will not inter-
fere by injunction to restrain repeated and threatened
alleged trespasses until the rights of the parties have
been determined at law. Washburn's Appeal, 101.

EQUITY-Continued.

A bill in equity will often be sustained upon the
ground that it is a more convenient remedy even
where an action of assumpsit will lie. Bierbower v.
Laird, 446.

A. being indebted to B., A.'s wife assigned certain
judgment notes of her husband held by her to B. as
collateral for the debt. B. entered up the notes, and
assigned the judgments to C. By means of attach-
ments issued on these judgments money was made
and received by C. in excess of the amount due by A.
to B. held, that a bill in equity would lie by A. and
wife against B. aud C. to compel them to account for
such excess. Ib.

Pending a bill by general creditors of a special
partnership for the appointment of a receiver, an exe-
cution levied on the firm property will have precedeuce
iu distribution. (C P.) Coffin v Gruber, 191.

Bill to compel satisfaction of mortgage. (C. P.).
Biddle v. Lewis, 379.

Where bondholders join to purchase at a fore-
closure sale, each purchaser must make his due con-
tribution to the purchase-money, or he will be estopped
from claiming any benefit of the purchase. Appeal of
the Fidelity Co., 266.

Injunction. An interlocutory injunction concludes
no right, and although affirmed on appeal by the
Supreme Court, it does not follow that the Supreme
Court will not on an appeal from a final decree reach
a different conclusion. Paxson's Appeal, 509.

By the provisions of the Act of June 12, 1879, grant-
ing the right of appeal to the Supreme Court from a
decree refusing a preliminary injunction, the pen-
dency of the appeal does not suspend the proceedings
in the original suit. Hence if the time has been ample
to have procured a settlement of the disputed facts by
a Master and a decree of the Court below, the Supreme
Court will not pass upon an appeal from a decree
refusing to grant a preliminary injunction. Gyger's
Appeal, 513.

Where one carrying on a lawful business, which
cannot profitably be conducted in any other way, inci-
dentally inflicts an injury upon others, a Chancellor is
not justified in interfering by an injunction unless
the evidence of substantial injury to the complainant
is so clear as not to admit of reasonable doubt.
McCaffrey's Appeal, 12.

EQUITY-Continued.

An injunction will not be granted against the Chief
Commissioner of Highways which will delay the im-
provement of a public road where the only question
involved in the bill is the legal width of such road.
(C. P.) Hey v. Estabrook, 222.

The water department will not be enjoined from
the collection of water-rents upon the ground of alleged
illegality in such assessment. (C. P.) Kershaw v.
Philadelphia Water Dep't, 415.

Practice and Pleading. Amendment to bill in
equity when allowed after the filing of a Master's re-
port. (C. P.) City v. Schuylkill River East Side R.
R. Co., 364.

It is unnecessary that rights set up in a bill in
equity to enjoin against multiplicity of suits should
be established at law, when the bill is demurred to,
the demurrer admits the rights. Bitting's Appeal, 45.

Costs. A commissioner in Pennsylvania taking tes-
timony in a proceeding pending in a Court of Equity
in another State can only recover such compensation
as is allowed him by that Court. Peters v. Rand, 539.
A Court of Equity has the power to divide the costs
of a proceeding between the parties. McCaffrey's Ap-
peal, 12.

Where a cross-bill is filed both parties are actors,
and each must pay for his share of the testimony.
(C. P.) Ohlsen v. Riehle, 437.

Upon application the Court will fix the amount of
the examiner's fees. (C. P.) Shillingford v. Church,
437.

ERRORS AND APPEALS. Two or more par-
ties having separate and independent claims upon a
fund for distribution cannot prosecute a joint appeal.
White's Appeal, 313.

The appointment of a guardian is a final decree on
which an appeal lies to the Supreme Court, but the
legal discretion of the Orphans' Court as to the fitness
of the person is not the subject of review. Pote's Ap-
peal, 289.

An appeal lies from an order of Court dividing the
costs between the parties to an issue in the nature of
an interpleader to determine the ownership of goods
in the hands of a garnishee, against which an attach-
ment execution has issued. Black's Appeal, 308.
The refusal to grant a new trial is not assignable for
error. Yerkes v. Rodrock, 315.

Whether or not statements of counsel and other

Injunction to restrain infringement of patent right.
(U. S. C. C.) Hatch v. Adams, 286.

Injunction to restrain interference with right of way
into cemetery. (C. P.) Harper v. Cemetery Co., 172.
Injunction, when not granted to stay waste. Lein-
inger's Appeal, 81.

Injunction to restrain openings in party walls.
P.) McCall v. Barrie, 28.

(C.

The publication by one who had attended lectures
delivered orally by an eminent surgeon, of a summary
or epitome thereof under the name of the lecturer, as
author of such epitome, will be enjoined. Miller's
Appeal, 27.

The publication of a book containing the substance
of such lectures, however, will not be restrained. Ib.
A Court of Equity will enjoin corporate action in
violation of the charter at the suit of any stockholder
without proof of special injury to such complaining
stockholder. (C. P.) Kuhn v. Academy of Music,
251.

Injunction to restrain obstruction to water-course
when granted. Bitting's Appeal, 45.

The question of costs in a contested election case
lies in the discretion of the Court which tries the
merits of the controversy, and cannot be reviewed in
this Court. In re Martin McDonough, 49.

A writ of error does not lie to the refusal to enter
judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence,
unless such refusal be excepted to at the time. Pat-
terson v. Roberts, 547.

The refusal of the Court below to note such excep-
tion, on the ground that it was not presented in time,
is not subject to review. Ih.

An interlocutory injunction concludes no rights, and
though affirmed on appeal by the Supreme Court, it
does not follow that the Supreme Court will not, on
an appeal from a final decree, reach a different con-
clusion upon the question whether a permanent in-
junction shall be granted. Paxson's Appeal, 509.

The Supreme Court will not review the refusal to
grant a preliminary injunction where there has been
time to bring the case to final hearing. Gyger's Ap-
peal, 513.

ERRORS AND APPEALS-Continued.

When a certiorari from the Common Pleas is taken
to proceedings instituted before a magistrate or justice
of the peace, under the Act of July 7, 1879, a writ of
error will not lie from the Supreme Court to review
the judgment of the Common Pleas. Such judgment
is final under the Act of March 20, 1810. Pennsylva-
nia Pulp Co. v. Stonghton, 412.

A decree in divorce setting aside all the proceedings
after the libel is final, and an appeal can be taken
therefrom. Fordham v. Fordham, 250.

An affidavit of counsel as to facts volunteered in
suport of a motion for a new trial forms no part of
the record. Alexander v. Commonwealth, 145.

The denial of a motion in arrest of judgment in a
criminal case is not subject to review. Ib.

ESTOPPEL-Continued.

Under what circumstances legatees are not estopped
by an adjudication of the executor's account, nor by
the dismissal of their petition to review, the question
of their right not having been adjudicated in the pro-
ceedings. Townsend's Appeal, 443.

The receipt of payment of a mortgage will estop
the mortgagee from denying payment as between him-
self and a third party who had been induced by the
mortgagee to act upon the faith of the receipt, but as
between himself and the mortgagor, the mortgagee is
not estopped from showing that the mortgage is not
in fact paid. Porter v. Megargel, 388.
Under what circumstances a person will be estopped
frotu denying the existence of a trust. Brooke's Ap-
peal, 537.

EVICTION. See LANDLORD and TENANT. Kemble
Iron Co. v. Scott, 220.

Where judgment has been entered non obstante vere-
dicto, and the plaintiff has specially excepted to the
refusal to enter judgment on the verdict, it is not
necessary, though convenient, that the point reserved
on which judgment has been entered should be set
out in the assignments of error. Ib.

When a point is answered in such a way as to be
tantamount to a refusal, an assignment of error must
nevertheless set out the answer totidem verbis. Getz
v. Phila. and Reading R. R. Co., 357.

Where the plaintiff in error omits to print in his
paper-book the evidence, the fact that the defendant
in error prints part of it, will not cure the deficiency.
Smith v. Arsenal Bank, 326. See PRACTICE.

remote. Sitler v. Gehr, 193.

Where tax books are produced showing assessments
upon a certain party which are marked "paid," this
is primâ facie evidence of payment in a question as to
the legal settlement of the party assessed. Scranton
Poor District v. Danville Directors, 183.

In an action for obstructing a highway, photographic
views of the locality are admissible in evidence, and
the fact that they did not exhibit every part of the
ground is not cause for their exclusion. Chesnut
Hill Turnpike Co. v. Piper, 55.

In an action of ejectment, where the issue was
whether the plaintiff was related to the person who
last died seised, declarations of deceased persons ad-
mittedly relatives of the plaintiff are inadmissible to
establish the relationship in question, unless there is
some evidence aliunde to prove that the declarants
were related to the person dying seised. It need not
be shown, however, that they belong to his branch of
the family. Sitler v. Gehr, 193.

A married woman should be held to the observance
of that good faith in her dealings with the world to
which others are bound. Hence, although contracts
void under the disability of coverture cannot be vali-
dated by an estoppel, in matters as to which she is
affected with no disability, she will be held to the ex-
ercise of the same degree of good faith as others in
like case. Grim's Appeal, 273.

This principle is applicable to a case where married
women executed, without the joinder of their hus-
bands, an instrument which virtually ratified a pur-
chase by their father's executor of a decedent's interest
in a partnership. In such case the married women
were held to be estopped from subsequently objecting
to such purchase. Ib.

A party presenting proofs of loss under a policy of
fire insurance is not estopped by the valuation of the
goods destroyed therein contained from subsequently
proving a higher valuation. Lebanon Ins. Co. v. Kep-
ler, 97.

Goods were levied on as the property of a tenant.
The landlord gave notice to the sheriff that the prop-
erty was his own. The claim of ownership having
been disallowed, the tenant was estopped from claim-
ing rent out of the fund. Edwards's Appeal, 22.

permit the declarations to go to a jury. Ib.

Conclusions drawn from a conversation of two living
persons are inadmissible in evidence on a question of
pedigree. Ib.

A record of deaths and burials kept by the pastor of
a church is admissible in evidence only to show the
deaths and burials; where the pastor has also made
entries as to the birth and parentage of the parties
dying, these are not admissible in evidence, as it was
no part of the pastor's duties to make such entries. Ib.

On a question of pedigree, wills, deeds, mortgages,
and other documents executed by parties bearing the
same name as the parties to the suit, and containing
recitals as to relationship, are inadmissible in evidence,
in the absenc of proof that the parties executing them
were relations of the parties to the suit. Ib.

In determining whether a note is forged, it is irre-
levant to ask an expert in what light he, as a banker,
regards the note. Foster v. Collner, 557.

Comparison of handwriting must be made by the
jury, not by experts. Ib.

Release, when admissible to establish ownership in
the bala ce of purchase-money due for lands. Tints-
man v. Croushore, 202.

Au offer of evidence, part of which is admissible,
and part inadmissible, may be refused. The Court

EVIDENCE-Continued.

is not bound to separate that which is admissible
from that which is inadmissible. Smith v. Arsenal
Bank, 326.

It is not proper practice to ask a witness upon cross-
examination whether he had been indicted and con-
victed of an offence, even for the purpose of affecting
his credibility. The record is the only proper evidence.
Buck v. Commonwealth, 521.

The Court on the trial of a criminal case may in its
discretion control the cross-examination of witnesses
by requiring the proposed questions to be reduced to
writing and submitted to the Court before being pro-
pounded to the witness. Ib.

In an action to recover the price of ore sold, where
the defence rests upon a defect in quality, it is error
to admit in evidence exhibits taken from an unculled
pile of ore, more than a year after the last delivery
under the contract. West Republic Mining Co. v.
Jones, 491.

It is the duty of the Court and not of the jury to con-
strue a written con'rac. Pegg v. Rist, 70.

Prior correspondence and conversations may be in-
troduced in evidence to explain a contract, but not to
modify its terms. West Republic Mining Co. v.
Jones, 491.

Parol evidence is not admissible to contradict or
vary written instruments, unless (1) there has been
fraud, accident, or mistake, in the creation of the in-
strument itself, or (2) unless there has been an
attempt to make a fraudulent use of the instrument,
in violation of a promise or agreement made at the
time the instrument was signed, and without which
it would not have been executed. Phillips v. Meily,
225.

Where the evidence relied upon to vary a written
contract rests upon the unsupported oath of one party,
which is contradicted by the oath of the other party,
there is no case to be submitted to a jury, for upon such
evidence a Chancellor would not reform a writing.
Phillips v. Meily, 225.

As between copartners, parol evidence is admissible
to qualify the terms of the articles of association.
Addams's Appeal, 230.

Where the language of a will is entirely clear and
unambiguous, a doubt suggested by extrinsic evidence
of the testator's circumstances at the time he wrote the
will, cannot be permitted to affect the construction of
the will. Sponsler's Appeal, 321.

EVIDENCE-Continued.

An assignor through whose assignment the plaintiff
claims is not a competent witness, when executors, ad-
ministrators, or guardians are parties to the action,
either as plaintiffs or defendants. Ib.

A party who has been paid by an administrator the
amount of his claim against a decedent's estate i- in-
competent to testify on the audit of the administrator's
account in support of the credit claimed by the ad-
ministrator as to the transactions between himself and
decedent, upon which his claim was based. Fross's
Appeal, 543.

A bank discounting a note is an assignee of the
maker receiving the proceeds, and therefore its stock-
holders come within the terms of the exception to the
Act of April 15, 1869, and are incompetent to testify
to matters occurring during the lifetime of the deceased
assignor. Foster v. Collner, 557.

Where a disputed note is in the same condition at
the trial as at the death of the assignor, the assignee
cannot testify that it is now partly in pencil. This
testimony would concern acts performed during the
lifetime of the assignor. Ib.

An employé of a charitable institution to which
property has been bequeathed is a disinterested wit-
ness to the will within the meaning of the Act of
April 26, 1855. Combs and Hankinson's Appeal, 247.
A credible witness within the meaning of the Act is
one who is not disqualified from testifying. Ib.
EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES of gas and water
companie. See CORPORATIONS. Emerson v. Com-
monwealth, 425.

EXECUTION. A ca. sa. may issue where the
defendant's claim property bond proves worthless in a
replevin. (C. P.) List v. Firth, 548.

An alias fi. fa. may issue upon an unrevived judg-
meut seven years old. (C. P.) Baltz v. Monaghan,
501.

Simultaneous writs of fi. fa. against the defendant's
real and personal property, and a speeial fi. fa. under
Act of April 8, 1873, against his interest in a partner-
ship may be prosecuted at once, su ject to the control
of the Court, until he amount of the judgment is
satisfied. (C. P.) Little v. Lane, 380.

The lien of a levy upon goods under a fieri facias is
not lost by a judicial order staying the writ, although
the order coutained no provision for continuing the
lien. Reid v. Lindsay, 134.

What evidence necessary to rebut presumption of a
gift, when a husband puts title in the name of his wife.
(O. C.) McCarron's Estate, 485.

A mistake by the testator in the name of a legatee,
will be corrected by the Court, where a description is
given in the will, and he context furnishes the means
of making it, there being no more presumption in favor
of the name than of the description. (O. C). Packer's
Estate, 486.

Competency of Witnesses. Where the plaintiff
dies during the pendency of proceedings on a me.
chanic's lien, and his administrator is substituted, the
contractor being a defendant and a party in interest,
is not a competent witness. Hommel v. Lewis,

119.

An administrator, plaintiff in a suit, having testified
to matters which happened after the death of his intes-
tate, cannot be cross-examined as to matters which
happened in the lifetime of the intestate, but if called
as an adversary under the Act of March 27, 1865, he
may. Tintsman v. Croushore, 202.

When a fi. fa. is levied upon real estate acquired
after the date of the judgment, it is necessary, in order
to create a valid and effectual lien as against subse-
quent purchasers, mortgagees, and judgment creditor-,
that the levy should be duly entered on the judgmeut
index. The mere docketing of the fi. fa. and index-
ing of the issuance of the writ is not sufficient to con-
stitute such lien. Ross's Appeal, 217.

A non-resident debtor is not entitled to the exemp
tion allowed by Act of Assembly. (C. P.) Wilkins
v. Rubincam, 128.

Claim for exemption to fund in hands of garnishee
when made too late. (C. P.) Eichert v. Becker, 454.
Where the claimant omits to file bond and narr.
and the sheriff on motion of the plaintiff proceeds in
the execution, the claimant is debarred of any action
against the sheriff, but his right against the plaintiff
remains unaffected. (C. P.) Haubert v. Larzelere,
190.

Attachment of funds in the hands of a master in
chancery. (C. P.) McFillan v. Brown, 416.