MANDAMUS-Continued.

MINES AND MINING.

Ib.

Mandamus against corporation officers to compel an
opportunity to inspec' corporation books. See CORPO-
RATION. Commonwealth v. Coit, 270, 484. Common-
wealth v. Phoenix Iron Co., 113.

MARRIAGE.

Liability of clergyman for
improperly marrying a minor. See HUSBAND AND
WIFE. Reed v. Martin 177.
MARRIED WOMEN. See HUSBAND AND WIFE.
MASTER. Attachment of fund in the hands of
master, when dissolved. (C. P.) Mc Fillan v.
Brown, 416.

a

It is the duty of a master in partition to search for
liens against the fund to be distributed by him. (C.
P.) Newell v. Clark, 157.

MASTER AND SERVANT. What sufficient

evidence of agency to justify holding the master for
the wrongful act of his servant in throwing heavy
goods from an upper window into the street. Heming-
way v. McCullough, 328.

When a lad of eighteen, employed as a miner, goes
into a dangerous part of the mine which he had been
advised to avoid, he is guilty of such contributory
negligence as bars an action in case he is injured.

Russell v. Hutchinson, 482.

A servant hired by the year for wages payable
monthly may maintain an action for monthly arrears,
although the year has not expired. (C. P.) Root v.
Clay Commercial Telephone Co., 547.
Suit by a servant against his master is not such a
breach of duty as will justify his discharge. Ib.
MECHANICS' LIENS. The agreement of the
landlord to the erection of buildings by a lessee and
vendee, who in contemplation of becoming owner,
enters by the permission of the tenant in possession
for the purpose of erecting buildings, is neces-ary to
bind the landlord by a mechanic's lien.
The mere
permission of a landlord out of possession, and with
no expectation of benefit, is not sufficient.
Miles v.
Pleasants, 514.

Whether materials are furnished on the credit of
the building or that of the contractor is a question for
the jury. Hommel v. Lewis, 119.

The statute conferring the lien does not make it
necessary for the plaintiff to allege in his claim or
prove affirmatively, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, that the materials were furnished on the
credit of the building. Ib.

Rights of parties
Kemble Iron Co. v.

Scott, 220. Duke v. Hague, 353.
MINORS. Marriage of, penalty for. See HUSBAND
AND WIFE. Reed v. Martin, 177.

See GUARDIAN AND WARD. PARENT AND CHILD.
MISNOMER. See AMENDMENT.

MISTAKE, in receipt for municipal claim, effect
of. Wolf v. Philadelphia, 107.

MORTGAGE. An unrestricted testamentary
power to sell given to an executor, includes a power
to mortgage, and survives to an administrator d. b. n.
c. t. a. Fidelity Ins., etc., Co. v. Wurfflein, 28.

A mortgage to secure the amount of a judgment
held by the mortgagee against the mortgagor is
founded upon a lawful and valid consideration as
against other creditors of the mortgagor. Ross's
Appeal, 217.

to an acknowledgment, when the certificate does not
Sufficiency of a certificate of a justice of the peace
show the county of the justice. See DEED. Ross's
Appeal, 217.

mortgagors cannot set up in another action that the
After judgment upon a scire facias sur mortgage, the
ledged by one of the mortgagors, a married woman.
mortgage was invalid, because not separately acknow-
Michaelis v. Brawley, 505.

given by a married woman will be sustained. (C. P.)
A provision for attorney's commission in a mortgage
Popham v. Napheys, 350.

The failure of a conveyancer intrusted with a duly
executed mortgage to pay over to the mortgagor the
money received in exchange for the same from the
mortgagee is no defence to an action on the mortgage.
(C. P.) Morris v. Barnard, 79.

of money specified to be in full satisfaction of the
A receipt from a mortgagee to a mortgagor for a sum
mortgage is evidence of payment, but not conclusive
of the fact; it is susceptible of explanation, or of di-
rect contradiction. Porter v. Megargel, 388.

Such receipt, however, will estop the mortgagee
from asserting the contrary as against a third person
who has acted upon faith of its statements. Ib.

Notwithstanding the fact that bankruptcy proceed-
ngs have been instituted against a mortgagor, the
mortgagee, if he does not prove his debt in bankruptcy,
scise facias upon the mortgage. Ib.
is not debarred from proceeding in the State Court by

Presumption of payment from lapse of time. (C. P.)
Philadelphia v. Comber, 502.

which time he tenders the amount due. (C. P.)
Kennedy v. Fenton, 468.

record of a mortgage by the recorder of deeds is not
The entry of satisfaction upon the margin of the
a judicial determination of its satisfaction, so as to

estop the mortgagee from subsequently showing as
against a bona fide purchaser that the entry had been
made in mistake by an unauthorized person. Brown
v. Henry, 385.

ecuted and recorded, but not delivered, no considera-
Proceedings to expunge from record a mortgage ex-
tion having passed. (C. P.) Biddle v. Lewis, 379.

Satisfaction of, under order of Court, practice as to
searches. (C. P.) Petition of Fourth Reformed
Church, 158.

MUNICIPAL CLAIMS. Property used as farm
land cannot be assessed according to the "front foot
rule" for improvements to a street upon which it abuts.

NEGLIGENCE-Continued.
pany delayed to remove the obstruction subsequent to
the injury is irrelevant. Ib.

The rule in determining proximate cause, that the
injury must be such a natural and probable conse-
quence of the alleged negligent act as might and ought
to have been foreseen by the wrong-doer, is peculiarly
applicable to accidents resulting from the fright of a
horse. Ib.

A property owner may place an object on the road-
side, such as a whitewash barrel, if it is not calcu-
lated to frighten ordinarily well-trained horses. He is
not bound to guard against frightening skittish, vici-
ous, timid, and easily-frightened horses. Piollet v. Sim-
mers, 241

In an action against a property owner for leaving an
obstacle in the road, whereby the plaintiff's horse had
been frightened, the defendant cannot set up as a de.
fence the fact that the plaintiff was at the time trav-
elling on the highway for pleasure on Sunday. Ib.

Where a loss occurs under a policy of fire insur-
ance, mere negligence or carelessness on the part of
the insured in relation to the fire, does not constitute
a defence which can be set up by the insurance com-
pany. Lebanon Insurance Co. v. Kepler, 97.

Whether owner of city property in possession of a
tenant is liable for injury to passer-by, caused by de-
fects in side-walk. (C. P.) Early v. Ashworth, 142.
Liability of mine owners to infant miner, who has
been warned to keep out of a dangerous part of the
mine. Russell v. Hutchison, 482.

A master is liable for the acts of his employé, in
throwing a heavy bale out of a window upon the head
of a passer-by. Hemingway v. McCulloch, 328.

Liability of executor continuing business under
direction in will. See DECEDENTS' ESTATES. Cline's
Appeal, 104.

A pedestrian crossing five parallel railway tracks is
not required to stop, look, and listen between each
tracks. Penna. R. R. Co. v. Garvey, 498.

Liability of common carrier of merchandise for bag-
gage of passenger. See COMMON CARRIER. National
Line S. S. Co. v. Smart, 457.

City of Philadelphia not liable for negligent driving
of steam fire engine by member of fire department.
Knight v. Philadelphia, 307.

Liability for explosion of escaping gas in highway.
Otto Township v. Wolf, 83.

Liability of municipality for accumulations of ice
and snow. Denhart v. Philadelphia, 214; Fleming
v. Lockhaven, 216.

Collision. See SHIPS AND SHIPPING. (U. S. D. C.)
The Algiers, 143.

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS. See BILLS
AND NOTES. BONDS.

NOISE. Injunction to restrain. See EQUITY.
McCaffrey's Appeal, 12.

NONSUIT, when motion to take off, will be al-
lowed nunc pro tunc. Ekins v. Susquehanna Ins.
Co. 483.

NON USER, of franchise, whether non user of a
franchise for a period of three years, is a cause of for-
feiture. Emerson v. Commonwealth, 425.

Repeal of statutes by non user. See STATUTES.
Homer v. Commonwealth, 337.

NOTICE, of easement, when a prior recorded deed
is insufficient notice of. Pegg v. Rist, 70.

Effect of registration of corporate certificate. Notice
to purchasers of lands described therein. Stockwell
v. McHenry, 323.

NUISANCE. An ordinance prohibiting the erec-
tion of wooden buildings under penalty cannot be en-
forced by injunction unless breach constitutes a nui-
sance per se. (C. P.) Williamsport v. McFadden, 269.
Injunction to restrain the noise of a printing house.
See EQUITY. McCaffrey's Appeal, 12.

ORDINANCES against wooden buildings, when
not enforced by injunction. See EQUITY. (C. P.)
Williamsport v. McFadden, 269.
Constitutionality of ordinances. See CONSTITUTION AL
LAW. (C. P.) Hadtner v. Williamsport, 138.

ORPHANS' COURT. Whether a legatee is
entitled to a decree in the Orphans' Court fixing per-
sonal liability for the legacy upon the devisee who
has accepted land charged with payment of the legacy
not decided. Eyre's Appeal, 295.

Under what circumstances the owner of a contin-
gent interest is entitled to a citation against a trustee
for an account. (0. C.) Dugan's Estate, 550.

Commission to take testimony in foreign parts, what
rules apply to the filing of exceptions. (O. C.) Cul-
len's Estate, 271.

An adjudication does not settle questions of right
which were not raised before the Auditing Judge.
Townsend's Appeal, 443.

Decree of Orphans' Court adjudicating claim of a
creditor of a decedent's estate who withdraws his
claim before the determination of the audit. (C. P.)
Haviland v. Fidelity Co., 141.

Palpable error upon face of adjudication.
Dougherty's Estate, 32.

(O. C.)

Distribution of proceeds of sale in the Orphans'
Court, when adverse claim of party denying the title
of the estate will be heard. (O. C.) McCarron's
Estate, 485.

The confirmation of the partial account of an ad-
ministrator is conclusive only as to matters included
in it which have been adjudicated under it. Fross's
Appeal, 543.

An executor who has filed his account and is ready
to pay auy balance found in his hands has a right to
a discharge and the appointment of a successor. (0.
C.) Morrow's Estate, 240.

PAPER-BOOKS, sufficiency of. See ERRORS AND
APPEALS. Smith v. Arsenal Bank, 326. McBeth r.
Newlin, 129.

PARTITION. Where an estate has been devised
in trust to children with remainder to grandchildren
absolutely, upon the vesting of any share in grand-
children, they are entitled to a partition. (0. C.)
Malseed's Estate, 368.

Under the statute of 32 Henry VIII. c. 32 (reported
by the Judges to be in force in Pennsylvania), no per-
son having an interest in the land even as a tenant
for years can be prejudiced by a partition to which he
is not a party. Duke v. Hague, 353.

Commissioners nominated by the heirs-at-law of a
decedent, and appointed by the Orphans' Court to
make partition of the real estate whereof a decedent
died seised, have power, after having divided the land
into as many purparts of equal value as there are
heirs, to allot to each heir by name one of the purparts.
In such case the commissioners are not required to
appraise the value of the land as a whole, or of the
several purparts Wistar's Appeal, 376.

Where a petition and writ of partition contain a

may be amended in regard to such statement, even

PARTITION- Continued.

after the record has been removed on appeal to the
Supreme Court. Ib.

Recognizances given in the Orphans' Court in parti-
tion for the payment of owelty are a lien upon the
lands accepted as against subsequent purchasers, even
though not indexed. Holman's Appeal, 227.

PARTNERSHIP-Continued.

But a partnership creditor obtaining judgment and
issuing an execution against partnership creditors
acquires a lien upon the property levied on, notwith-
standing the pendency of a creditor's bill for the ap-
pointment of a receiver of the firm, and the setting
aside of the confessed judgments (C. P.) Coffin v.
Gruber, 191.

Ib.

It is the duty of a master in partition to search for
liens. (C. P.) Newell v. Clark, 157.

PARTNERSHIP. Where the existence of a
partnership is at issue a public advertisement in a
newspaper in the name of the firm holding themselves
out to the public as prepared to do a certain line of
business is admissible in evidence. Yerkes v. Rod-
rock, 315.

Rights of partnership as lessee from one partner to
damages for value of leasehold taken by a railroad
company in the exercise of the right of eminent
domain. Getz v. Phila. & Read. R. R. Co., 357.

What insufficient averment of notice of dissolution
to parties having prior dealings with firm. (C. P.)
Sagnier v. Watson, 455.

A valid pledge can be made of an interest in a part-
nership to be subsequently created so as to secure to
the pledgee a priority over other partnership creditors.
Collins's Appeal, 5.

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 com-
pel a 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 in
the exercise of good faith and a reasonable discretion
he may choose to accept. Ib.

The purchase of the interest of a deceased partner
by the executor in his own behalf is a transaction
which will be closely scanned. Ib.

An interest in a limited partnership association is
not the subject of an attachment.
(C. P.) Wether-
ald v. Shupe, 366.

A. and B., who were general partners, became insol-
vent. A. made an assignment of all his property for
the benefit of creditors; B.'s interest in the firm was
sold on au execution of an individual creditor. In a
distribution of the partnership assets in the hands of
a receiver, held that the general creditors of the firm
were entitled to priority over the assignee of the one
partner, and the purchaser of the other partner's inte-
rest. Gregory's Appeal, 525.

The assignment by A. was not a waiver of his equity
to have firm assets applied to firm debts, the assignee
having the same right to enforce such equity as the
partner. Ib.

Where the title to real estate used for partnership
purposes is not in the firm, the presumption is that it
is not firm property. In order to rebut this presump-
tion, as between the partners, it must appear that it
was paid for with the firm's money or was by agree-
ment actually brought into the common stock.
Shafer's Appeal, 407.

The appointment of a receiver for a partnership does
not bar suit against the partners. (C. P.) Seavey v.
Jenkins, 124.

Special Partnerships. Judgments confessed by
the general partners to the creditor of the special part-
ner who has loaned him the special capital advanced
are invalid as against the creditors of the partnership.,
Coffin and Hurlbut's Appeal, 52.

467.

Limited Partnership Associations. An omis-
sion to comply with the requisites of the Act of June
2, 1874, does not render all the members liable as
partners to persons who have dealt with the associa-
tion as a limited company. (C. P.) Eliot v. Himrod,
77.

Unincorporated joint stock association. Di-
rectors are not liable to the stockholders for losses
caused by their mistakes of judgment honestly made,
where they acted without compensation, and appear
to have exercised their best skill and discretion for
the general benefit of the concern without seeking to
benefit themselves to the injury of their copartners.
Addams's Appeal, 230.

PARTY WALL. Injunction to restrain erection
of, when refused. (C. P.) McCall v. Barrie, 28.

PATENTS. A purchaser of patented articles
from a territorial assignee of the patent does not ac-
quire the right to sell the articles in the course of trade,
outside the territory granted to his vendor. (U. S. C.
C.) Hatch v. Adams, 286.

Construction of license to use patented articles
during term of patent and all renewals at a certain
royalty. U. S. C. C.) McKay v. Mace, 503.

PAVING AND GRADING. Assessment for.
See ROADS.

PAYMENT. Voluntary, when not recoverable.
See DEBTOR AND CREDITOR. Union Nat. Bank v. Der-
sham, 541. Boswell v. Philadelphia, 169.

Presumption of payment from lapse of time. Hess
v. Frankenfield, 405. Peters's Appeal, 489. Philadel-
phia v. Comber, 502.

Tender of mortgage money, by mortgagor, when
good. Kennedy v. Fenton, 468.

PEDIGREE. See EVIDENCE. Sitler v. Gehr, 193.
PENALTY, when not liquidated damages. See
DAMAGES. Pennypacker v. Jones, 361.

PHOTOGRAPHS, when admissible in evidence.
See EVIDENCE. Chestnut Hill T. P. Co. v. Piper, 55.
PLEADING. Plea in abatement setting up facts
showing want of jurisdiction, when good. (C. P.)
Bank v. American Ship Building Co., 30.

PRAC-

Amendment of narr. when allowed. (C. P.) Hamp-
shire Paper Co. v. Hey, 454. See AMENDMENTS.
TICE.

PLEDGE, of interest in partnership, when valid
as to creditors. See DERTOR AND CREditor. Collins's
Appeal, 5.

POINT RESERVED. Sufficiency of. See PRAC-
Smith v. Arsenal Bank, 326.

TICE.

POOR LAW. The district wherein a pauper has
a settlement is liable for his maintenance. But when
a person removes to another State and acquires a domi-
cil there, he loses his settlement in Pennsylvania and
does not regain it by mere residence in his former
township. Juniata County v. Overseers of Delaware
Township, 465.

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

POOR LAW-Continued.

A husband may gain a new settlement by residence
and paying taxes in a new district, not withstanding
the fact that during such time his wife receives sup-
port as a pauper in the town of his old settlement. In
such case it is proper to order the removal of the wife
from the old settlement to the new settlement gained
by the husband. Ib.

POWERS. A testamentary power to sell includes
a power to mortgage, and survives to an administrator
d. b. n. c. t. a. Fidelity Co. v. Wurfflein, 28.

Power to sell, when exercisable by a surviving ex-
ecutor. Lippincott v. Philadelphia Trust Co., 69.
Power of appointment. See WILL.

PRACTICE. Particularity in affidavit for capias.
In an action for a felonious assault, the relationship
between the plaintiff and the woman assaulted must
be set out, and also the place where the assault was
committed. (C. P.) Redmond v. Fowler, 126.
Sufficiency of affidavit to hold to bail. (C. P.)
Brown v. Been, 469.

Words impeaching a woman's chastity are not per
se sufficient to justify holding a defendant to special
bail. (C. P.) Havercamp v. Sheldon, 501

The facts stated in a sheriff's return of service of a
writ can be contradicted upon a plea in abatement
denying jurisdiction. (C. P.) Bank v. Ship Building
Co. 30.

Amendment of sheriff's return, when not allowed.
Clare v. Symington, 401.

Rule to show cause of action in foreign attachment
when granted. (C. P.) Rowland v. Red Cross Co.,
468.

Rule to plead, effect of on affidavit of defence. (C.
P.) Fuoss v. Schleines, 192.

Effect of judgment for an amount admitted to be
due in an affidavit of defence. (C. P.) Blanchard e.
Allison, 381.

Bill of particulars, order for will not be granted after
plea filed.
(C. P.) Shoe Co. v. Chaid, 256.

PRACTICE-Continued.

Under what circumstances an order will be granted
to examine the defendant in advance of trial. (C. P.)
Bank v. Bryan, 468.

The Common Pleas have power to suspend their
rules and seal a bill of exceptions after the expiration
of the time required by the rules. McBeth v. Newlin,
129.

A fi. fa. may issue after seven years, if within five
years of the date of judgment a fi. fa. issued and hav-
ing been returned the judgment remains unpaid.
(C. P.) Baltz v. Monaghan, 501.

Paper-books for Supreme Court, requisites of. See
ERRORS AND APPEALS. Smith v. Arsenal Bank, 326.
Divorce, advertisements in proceedings. See Hus-
BAND AND WIFE. In re Rules of Court, 283.

Proceedings to attach for contempt in failing to an-
swer interrogatories. (C. P.) Gude v. Universal Ins.
Co., 438.

Trial and its Incidents. A nonsuit should never
be granted where there is any evidence sufficient to
justify the inference of the disputed facts, on which
the right to recover rests. The plaintiff is entitled to
the benefit of every inference which might fairly be
drawn by the jury from the evidence. Hill v. Na-
tion Trust Co., 562.

Whether or not statements of counsel and other pa-
pers shall be permitted to go out with the jury, is so
much a matter within the sound discretion of the
Court, that in ordinary cases the Supreme Court will
not entertain an exception to its exercise. Yerkes v.
Rodrock, 315.

It is the duty of the Court and not of the jury to
construe a written contract; it would have been error
to have submitted to the jury the question whether
the defendant had orally agreed to purchase from the
plaintiffs subject to the rights of third parties when
there was neither allegation nor proof of a mistake or
omission in the written contract. Pegg v. Rist, 70.

It is the province of the Court where declarations
of deceased persons are offered to prove pedigree, to
determine whether the facts have been shown which

Stay of proceedings until payment of costs in prior
action when granted. (C. P.) Barton v. Jones, 568.
Upon judgment by default for want of a plea, the
Court may call a jury from the regular panel to assess
the damages. (C. P.) McKeown v. Union Pass. R.
W. Co., 125.

Letters rogatory, when they will not be issued. (C.
P.) Bible House v. Gay, 271.

The Court will not pass upon a commission issued
to take testimony until the time of trial. Vesturme
v. Way, 224.

A judgment obtained through a misapprehension of
the defendant counsel, the copy filed not having been
docketed will be stricken off. (C. P.) Hope v. Gross, 14.
Judgment by default when opened. (C. P.) Har-
ais v. Fitzgerald, 438.

A rule to strike off a plea should be heard on the
miscellaneous argument list, not on the current mo-
tion list. (C. P.) Osner v. Vollrath, 301.

Gehr, 193.

Under what evidence in an action for frightening a
horse a verdict should have been directed for the de-
fendant. Pittsburgh Southern Railway Co. v. Taylor,
37.

Where the testimony is voluminous, it is important
that the résumé in the charge on one side should be
as complete as on the other. Gehman v. Erdman, 278.
An offer of evidence part of which is admissible and
part inadmissible may be refused. The Court is not
bound to separate the admissible from the inadmissi-
ble. Smith v. Arsenal Bank, 326.

The Court is not bound to answer a point which
assumes all the facts. Ib.

A question of law reserved must be based upon
facts admitted or found by the jury. A point reserved
upon all the evidence is bad. Ib.

An equivocal answer by the Court to a pertinent
point is ground for reversal. Foster v. Collner, 557.
See AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENCE LAW, AMENDMENT, AT-
tachment, Costs, Crimes, Equity, Errors and AppRALS,
EXECUTION, EVIDENCE, JUDGMENT, JUSTICE of the Peace,
ORPHANS' COURT, Pleading.

PRESUMPTIONS. Of payment from lapse of
Hess v. Frankenfield, 405; Philadelphia v.
Comber, 502. Peters's Appeal, 489.

time.

Of death, from lapse of time. (0. C.) Franken's
Estate, 455.

Of grant of easement. Gehman v. Erdman, 278.