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-
Executors will not be allowed compensation for con-tain claim of the decedent's estate was too doubtful to testing a valid claim. Shafer's Appeal, 407.
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-
The executor of a deceased partner has a right only to compel an account and payment to him of his tes- tator's interest in the firm. He has no right to compel the continuance of the business. Grim's Appeal, 273. An executor of a deceased partner may, in order to avoid a forced sale of the stock of the firm on hand, settle with the surviving partners on such terms as interest could be charged on the indebtedness of the the exercise of good faith and a reasonable discretion he may choose to accept.
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.
Action by relatives for services rendered to the de- Ruble, 431. cedent. (0. C.) Heathcote's Estate, 5×2.
Stale claims against dead men's estates should be closely scrutinized. Peter's Appeal, 489.
Upon a scire facias to revive a judgment against a widow and heirs of a decedent, an affidavit of defeuce need not be filed. (C. P.) Hall v. Wiggins, 112.
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
When upon the death of a party there is a judg- ment more than five years old standing against him, which constitutes a lien upon his real estate, the plain- tiff may, after issuing a scire facias against the admin- istratrix and obtaining judgment thereon, issue an execution against the property, the sale under which will pass a valid title to the property. It is not neces-woman, wherein she and her husband were named as sary in such case to make the widow and he rs parties before proceeding to execution, although there was a scire facias to revive issued within five years of the entry of the original judgment pending and undeter- mined at the time of the death of the original defeud- ant. Middleton v. Middleton, 309.
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 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,
EQUITY. Where the rights are continuing, or redress can be had only through a multiplicity of suits, or where the wrongful acts may become the foundation of an adverse right, equity will interfere to restrain the invasion of such rights. Bitting's Ap- peal, 45.
It is unnecessary that rights set up in the bill should be established at law, where the bill is de- Ib. See SHIP- murred to, the demurrer admits the rights
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.
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.
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
An ordinance prohibiting the erection of wooden buildings under penalty cannot be enforced by injunc-papers shall be permitted to go out with the jury is so tion unless breach constitutes nuisance per se. (C. much a matter within the sound discretion of the P.) Williamsport v. McFadden, 269. Court, that in ordinary cases the Supreme Court will not entertain an exception to its exercise. Ib.
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.
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.
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.
A plaintiff in error omits the printing of matters specified in the Rules of Court at his peril, but when abstracts showing the issue and how it was made have EVIDENCE. To show the existence of a part- no bearing on the question for review, he risks noth- nership, evidence is admissible of a public advertise- ing by omitting to print such abstracts and the plead- ment in a newspaper in the name of the firm in which ings; nor need he print evidence wholly unnecessary they hold themselves out as engaged in a certain line to an understanding of the question; the rule requires of business. Yerkes v. Rodrock, 315. the printing of an appendix containing such docu- Mere identity of name is not even primâ facie evi- mentary or other evidence as may be necessary. Mc-dence of identity of person where the transactions are Beth v. Newlin, 129.
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.
ESTATES TAIL. See DEED. ESTOPPEL. Where the bondholders of a rail- road combine to purchase at a foreclosure sale on joint account, each must pay his proportionate part of the purchase-money when called upon to do so, and upon default of so doing, is estopped from asserting any It is the province of the Court to decide in such case interest in the property purchased. Fidelity Com-whether sufficient connection has been established to pany's Appeal, 266.
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
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.
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.
Lien of an execution levied upon partnership pro- Parol evidence to identify the contents of a will.perty pending a bill for a receiver. (C. P.) Coffin v. David S. Baker's Appeal, 473. Gruber, 191.
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,
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.
« PreviousContinue » |