Mandamus is the proper remedy by which to com- under a mining lease construed. pel a borough council to levy a tax.
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.
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.
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.
The fact that the materials are charged on the plain- time specified for payment, and not finding the mort- A mortgagor is not in default who calls within the tiff's books to the contractor alone is not prima facie evidence that they were sold on the individual credit gagee at his usual place of business explains his er- of the contractor, and not on the credit of the build-rand, and is told to call on a subsequent day, at ing. Ib.
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.
MUNICIPAL CLAIMS—Continued.
A statute authorizing such assessment is unconstitu- tional and void. Scranton v. Penna. Coal Company,
When a party has notice and opportunity to object to an assessment against his property for a street im- provement, based either on the front foot rule. or on the estimated value of the premises assessed, the ab- sence of a provision for an appeal in the Act authori- zing such assessment does not infringe constitutional rights. Winter v. City of Reading, 329.
When by law any proposed ordinance for the improve- ment of a street must, prior to its passage, be filed in a public office for the benefit of all parties interested, with an estimate, plan, and schedule attached, show- ing the amount to be assessed against each abutting property owner, failure on the part of the city to comply with a provision in an ordinance passed by its councils requiring notice to each property owner after the completion of the improvement of the amount as- sessed on him, and requiring him to pay the same within a given time, will not affect the validity of a city claim filed to collect the amount assessed against the premises. The provisions of the ordinance are directory in character merely. Ib.
A municipal claim can only be stricken off for some defect apparent upon the face of the record. Connels- ville v. Gilmore, 343.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS-Continued. unequal. The remedy is in the law-making, not the law-interpreting power. Ib.
The State tax of three mills on the dollar, imposed by the Act of April 29, 1844, § 32, is not chargeable to or payable by the city of Reading on its municipal bonds which have been purchased, and are held in a sinking fund, to meet the outstanding indebtedness, as provided in the Act of May 23, 1874, § 11. (C. P.) Commonwealth v. Reading, 529.
Municipal corporations have no power to purchase the outstanding judgments or obligations of their creditors for any purpose whatsoever, not even to set them off against the claims of creditors. Such action is in violation of Article IX. § 7, of the Constitution prohibiting a loan of credit. Earley's Appeal, 67.
The water department of the city of Philadelphia cannot be enjoined from the collection of alleged un- lawful assessments of water rent. There is an ade- quate remedy at law. (C. P.) Kershaw v. Philadel- phia Water Department, 415.
A certificate by commissioner of highways approv- ing work done under a street-cleaning contract, is not conclusive evidence that the work has been done, but the city may controvert it. (C. P.) Nuttall v. City, 439.
pipe to be afterwards laid when the street is dedicated. Boswell v. Philadelphia, 169.
Houses erected on a private street of Philadelphia, in which no water-pipe has been laid, have no right The default of the owner of the property to remove to city water. The granting of a permit is discretion- obstructions to the highway, after notice served upon ary with the water department, and may be prohib- him by the borough authorities to have the same re-ited unless a frontage assessment is paid for water- removed is a prerequisite to the filing of a municipal claim under the Act of April 3, 1851, for the removing of such obstruction. Such demand and refusal must be averred in the claim, together with a statement clearly set out that the alleged obstruction was within the lines of the borough street, otherwise the claim is defective, and may be stricken off on motion. Ib.
Preliminary notice to the owner to pay before issuing a sci. fa. is indispensable, and a writ issued before such notice is given will be quashed. (C. P.) City v. Han- best, 349.
The writ will not be allowed to stand as a sci. fa. to revive the lien independent of the proceedings to levy the debt. Ib.
Besides the defences allowed by the Act of April 19, 1843, the defendant may show that the work was done without authority. Ib.
Rights of steam-supply companies in the streets of Philadelphia. (C. P.) Philadelphia Steam-Supply Company v. Philadelphia, 57.
The Act of August 26, 1721, § 4, prohibiting the sale of fire-works in Philadelphia without special li- cense, and imposing a penalty for violation of its pro- visions, is in force, and has not become obsolete or repealed by subsequent legislation. Homer v. Com- monwealth, 337.
In order to support an action for failure to keep highways in repair, the individual must show special and peculiar injury resulting to himself from the neglect. (C. P.) Gold v. Philadelphia, 63.
A township is not an insurer against all defects or obstructions, latent as well as patent, in the public
When mistake in receipt given for a municipal claim highways. Otto Township v. Wolf, 83. can be shown. Wolf v. Philadelphia, 107.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. An ordi- nance imposing a tax upon a specific industry for which a license had been previously issued in accord- ance with an Act of Assembly, impairs the obligation of no contract within the meaning of the Constitution. (C. P.) Hadtner v. Williamsport, 138.
An ordinance which imposes license taxes varying in amounts upon different kinds of industries is not void for want of uniformity. Ib.
A tax ordinance need not contain in its title the pur- poses for which the funds so to be raised shall be ap- plied, and the title "An ordinance for the levy and collection of a license tax in the City of Williamsport" is a sufficient title for an ordinance which imposes dif- ferent taxes upon different species of industries. Ib. Under the Act of May 23, 1874, it is not necessary that municipal corporations should first exhaust the general revenue fund raised by a tax on real and per- sonal property under § 1, before proceeding to impose a license tax under § 4. Ib.
An ordinance cannot be judicially declared invalid, because its provisions are impracticable, unjust, and
The township is not liable for damages caused by the explosion of gas from a pipe fractured by a pass- ing team, unless notice of the break has been given to the proper officers. Ib.
The city of Philadelphia is not liable for injuries caused by the negligent driving of a fire engine by an employé of the fire department. Knight v. Philadel- phia, 307.
NECESSARIES, suit for. See HUSBAND AND
NEGLIGENCE. A traveller on a public road, who does not avoid a known danger when he might have done so, is guilty of contributory negligence. Pittsburgh Southern R. W. Co. v. Taylor, 37.
In case of a railroad accident, the company is en- titled to a reasonable time in which to remove an ob- struction thereby occasioned at or near a public road crossing. Ib.
In an action against a railroad company to recover damages suffered by reason of the plaintiff's horse taking fright at an obstruction, evidence that the com-
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.
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
Notice of proposed street improvements. See ROADS. statement of adverse holding, the petition and writ Winter v. Reading, 329.
may be amended in regard to such statement, even
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.
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.
The Act of April 22, 1856. requiring judgments, etc., to be indexed does not apply to a recognizance in par- Failure to renew special partnership in the manner tition in the Orphans' Court, nor does it require a judg-prescribed by statute. (C. P.) Hirsch v. Vanuxem, ment index to be kept in the Orphans' Court.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Nonsuit for want of bill of particulars. Kitchen v. Mutual Life Co., 548. Linderman v. Land Co., 192. Non pros. for failure to file a narr. (C. P.) Lands-justify the admission of the declarations. Sitler v. downe v. Fidelity Co., 530. Schuyler v. Collins, 531. White v. Hoskins, 367.
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.
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.
Of death, from lapse of time. (0. C.) Franken's Estate, 455.
Of grant of easement. Gehman v. Erdman, 278.
« PreviousContinue » |