« PreviousContinue »
Of gift. See HUSBAND AND WIFE. Earnest's Appeal.
PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. The convey-
ancer intrusted with an executed mortgage is the
agent of the borrower, and in case the money is em-
bezzled the loss falls on the borrower. (C. P.) Mor-
ris v. Barnard, 79.
PROXIMATE CAUSE. See NEGLIGENCE.
PUNITIVE DAMAGES. See DAMAGES
ROADS, HIGHWAYS, AND BRIDGES.
An owner of land, through whose property a public
highway runs, has an absolute right to use a portion
of such highway for certain purposes, for a temporary
purpose and a reasonable manner, and this right may
be exercised in derogation of the rights of the travel-
ling public. Piollet v. Simmers, 241.
Liability of principal for tort of agent. See MASTER
AND SERVANT. Hemingway v. McCulloch, 328.
The mere exercise of his right of obstruction for a
lawful purpose, imposes no liability to pay for damages
resulting therefrom. It must be an unreasonable or
negligent exercise of the right to impose liability. Ib.
PRINCIPAL AND SURETY. See SURETY.
PROOFS OF LOSS. See INSURANCE. Lebanon
Ins. Co. v. Kepler, 97.
PROTEST, waiver of. See BILLS AND NOTES. A property-owner who has a lawful right to expose
Annville Bank, v. Kettering, 65.
an object on or along a public highway, within view
PROVINCE OF COURT AND JURY. See of pa-sing horses, for a temporary purpose, is bound
only to take care that it shall not frighten ordinarily
well-trained horses. He is not bound to guard against
frightening skittish or vicious horses. Ib.
Action against railroad company for leaving débris
of wreck in neighborhood of highway, whereby horses
are frightened. Pittsburgh, etc., R. W. Co. v. Taylor, 37.
Right of land-owner to construct causeway from his
land to a turnpike. Chestnut Hill T. P. Co. v. Pi-
Right of supervisors to enter on private property
abutting on road, and to take gravel, etc., for repairs
to road, without first paying or securing compensation
for such taking, injury, or destruction. (C. P.) Mar-
shall v. Township of Towameusing, 235.
A town council canuot by a mere resolution take
land to widen a street. If they attempt to do so, they
are liable in trespass. Gilmore v. Connellsville,
RAILROAD. The coupon bonds of a railroad
are negotiable instruments. Mason v. Frick, 369.
Action against by one about to cross the track. See
NEGLIGENCE. Penna. R. R. Co. v. Garvey, 498.
Action against by traveller whose horse was fright-
ened by the débris of a wreck. See NEGLIGENCE. Pitts-
burgh, etc., R. W. Co. v. Taylor, 37.
Assessment of land damages. See DAMAGES. Don-
aldson v. R. R. Co., 312. Getz v. R. R. Co., 357.
RATIFICATION, by married woman, what will
operate as. See HUSBAND AND WIFE. Grim's Appeal,
RECEIPT, when not conclusive. See MORTGAGE.
Porter v. Megargel, 388.
RECEIVER. See PARTNEership.
RECORDER OF DEEDS. The Acts of March
27, 1865, and March 18, 1875, prescribing the duties of
recorders of deeds, as to keeping indexes, are not re-
trospective. Stockwell v. McHenry, 323.
RECORDING ACTS, effect of recording. See
NOTICE. Pegg v. Rist, 70.. Stockwell v. McHenry,
REWARD, for capture of horse-thief.
CRIMES. Butler Co. v. Leibold, 464.
REFUNDING BOND, necessity of. See DECE-
DENTS' ESTATES. (0. C.) Brolasky's Estate, 31.
REGISTRATION, of corporate certificate.
CORPORATION. Stockwell v. McHenry, 323.
REMAINDER. In order to create a vested re-
mainder, not only must the precedent estate be limited
upon an event that must certainly happen, and the
person or persons to whom the remainder is limited,
be in esse, but such person or persons must be ascer-
tained. Mergenthaler's Appeal, 441.
RENT. See LANDLORD AND TENANT.
REPEAL, of statutes by implication not favored.
See STATUTES. Sifred v. Commonwealth, 373.
Of statutes by non-user. See STATUTES.
REPLEVIN. A right of immediate possession
will support. Midvale Steel Works v. Hallgarten, 47.
Where the defendant's claim property bond proves
worthless, the plaintiff may issue a ca. sa. (C. P.)
List v. Firth, 548.
REPUBLICATION, of will by codicil. See
Carl's Appeal, 305.
RES ADJUDICATA. Proceedings in Orphans'
Court upon a claim against a decedent's estate. (C.
P.) Haviland v. Fidelity Co., 141.
RESCISSION, of contract for fraud. See SALE.
Nelson v. Martin, 448.
RESERVED POINT. Sufficiency of.
PRACTICE. Smith v. Arsenal Bank, 326.
RESULTING TRUSTS. See TRUSTS.
A jury appointed by the Quarter Sessions to report
on opening streets on City Plan, must, in pursuance
of the Act, endeavor to procure releases from property-
owners, or assess damages incident to opening, if they
report in favor of such opening. (Q. S.) In re Pearl
If, in proceedings to lay out a road, the report of
viewers does not mention improvements along the line
of the proposed road, the presumption is there are
none. But if this presumption is repelled by other
facts which do appear, such as the assessment of dam-
ages, the report must mention the improvements, and
this constitutes sufficient cause to set aside on certio-
rari, an order of Court approving and confirming the
same. In re Road in Bellevernou, 232.
The sufficiency of a petition for the appointment of
viewers, and of the report of the viewers, is in partic-
ulars not required by statute a matter of discretion
with the Quarter Sessions, but the better practice is to
require that they set forth all material facts with rea-
sonable clearness. Ib.
Municipal claims for street assessments.
Duty of municipal corporations to keep highway
free from dangers and in good repair. See MUNICIPAL
RULES OF COURT.
Power of Courts to sus-
pend its own rules. See PRACTICE. McBeth v. New-
Rule of Supreme Court transferring certain counties
to the Eastern District, 353.
Change of Return day for Erie County, 414.
Construction of Rule 85, as to advertisements in
RULE IN SHELLEY'S CASE. See WILL. Car-
See roll v. Burns, 553.
RULE IN TWYNE'S CASE. See DEBTOR AND
SALARY. Right of a de jure magistrate, seated | STATUTES-Continued.
after a protracted election contest, to salary pending
the same. (C. P.) Rink v. Philadelphia, 345.
SALE. Although a sale by sample does not con-
stitute a warranty in Pennsylvania, a stipulation that
future deliveries will equal the sample, is enforceable,
and it is immaterial to determine whether such stip-
ulation is a warranty or condition. West Republic
Mining Co. v. Jones, 491.
A contract to deliver ore of a certain weight, and of
a certain price per ton, but where no time is fixed for
the completion of the contract, nor any amount as a
monthly delivery, and where payment is made before
any delivery, is an entire contract. Ib.
Sale of horse, what sufficient evidence of fraud to
justify rescission. Nelson v. Martin, 448.
SALVAGE. See SHIPPING.
SATISFACTION, of mortgage erroneously
made, effect of. See MORTGAGE. Brown v. Henry, 385.
SHELLEY'S CASE, Rule in. See WILL.
Carroll v. Burns, 553.
SHERIFF, liability of, for goods wrongfully taken
in execution, when the claimant fails to perfect the
interpleader. (C. P.) Haubert v. Larzelere, 190.
Fees of sheriff in Lackawanna County.
Lackawanna Co. v. Stevens, 86.
SHERIFF'S SALE. See EXECUTION.
SHIPS AND SHIPPING. Collision. Failure
to exhibit lighted torch upon approach of steam ves-
sel. Negligence of lookout, when inferred from
failure to discern approaching vessel. (U. S. D. C.)
The Algiers, 143.
Measure of compensation for salvage service in tow-
ing vessel from a burning dock. (U. S. D. C.) The
Where a tow boat while towing a ship from one
port to another by a slight deviation, rescues an aban-
doned vessel, and tows it astern to port, the tow boat
is alone entitled to salvage. (U. S C. C.) The
Ephraim and Anna, 15.
A deviation for the purpose of rescuing a vessel
may affect the insurance of the tow, and force a breach
of the contract of towage; but that does not entitle
the tow to compensation in the nature of salvage. Ib.
SLANDER. Words not actionable-"You have
robbed me. If you have not robbed me directly, you
have robbed me indirectly." (C. P.) Hughes v.
Words impeaching a woman's chastity are not per
se sufficient justify a holding to special bail. (C. P.)
Havercamp r. Sheldon, 501.
SPIRITUALISM. See CRIMES. Commonwealth
v. Keeper, 282.
STATUTES. The repeal of statutes by implication
is not favored. To effect such repeal, there must be
such an irreconcilable inconsistency between the pro-
visions of the two statutes, that they cannot stand
together, or they must be so manifestly and totally
repugnant as to lead necessarily to the conclusion that
the Legislature intended that the later statute should
repeal the former. Sifred v. Commonwealth, 373.
The Act of April 12, 1875, which prohibits the sale
of liquor upon Sunday and provides a penalty by fine,
does not repeal by implication the prior Act of
February 26, 1855, which
the sale of liquor
on Sunday, and provides a penalty by fine and im-
law, or by a clause of such subsequent law so posi-
tively repugnant to its provisious that the two cannot
stand together or be consistently reconciled. Homer
v. Commonwealth, 337.
Statutes which are general in their scope relating to
the raising of revenue by imposing duties or taxes on
vendors of merchandise do not supersede or repeal
any special Act or local statute regulating or prohibit-
ing the sale of certain articles, whether such latter
Acts be prior or subsequent to the general tax law. Ib.
STOCK, of corporation, when assessable.
CORPoration. Price's Appeal, 182.
STREETS. See ROADS.
SUBROGATION. Where one of two joint
debtors pays under execution a judgment entered
against them, taking an assignment of record, he is
entitled to be subrogated to the creditors' rights
against the estate of his co-obligor to the extent to
which he has paid his co-obligor's proportion of the
debt. Ackerman's Appeal, 294.
Where a judgment is obtained on a joint and
several note against three defendants, and bail for stay
of execution is entered, and after the expiration of the
stay, two of the defendants pay the judgment under
execution, and take an assignment of it, the allegation
that they were merely sureties will not entitle them to
recover the amount of the judgment from the bail for
stay. Wolff v. Stover, 390.
SUNDAY. Rights of travellers to safe highway
are the same on Sunday as other days. Piollet v.
Violation of law relating to worldly employments.
See CRIMES. Commonwealth v. Bosch, 316.
SUPERVISORS. See TowNSH.P.
SURETY. An undertaking that another's debt
shall be paid when due is a contract of suretyship
and not of guaranty. McBeth v. Newlin, 129.
In such case the surety is liable without proof of
the insolvency of the principal debtor. Ib.
The difference between the contract of suretyship
and guaranty is radical. But the language used to
constitute a party the one or the other has not been
clearly defined. The Court will look at the substance
of the agreement rather than the form of words used.
Riddle v. Thompson, 155.
A. and B. assigned a judgment to C. and "guaran-
teed" its payment within one year, held that the
assignors were sureties and not guarantors, and hence
the assignee having extended the time of payment
without the consent of the assignors, the sureties were
Rights of surety to subrogation. See SUBROGATION.
Wolff v. Stover, 390.
Rights of surety in Orphans' Court to compel trus-
tee to file an account and enter 8 new bond.
Schnurman's Appeal, 280.
Surety for tenant, what a good defence in an action.
(C. P.) Traeger v. Hartnett, 300.
TAXES AND TAXATION. Statutes which
are general in their scope relating to the raising of
revenue by imposing duties or taxes ou vendors of
merchandise, do not supersede or repeal any special
acts regulating or prohibiting the sale of certain
articles, whether such Acts be prior or subsequent to
the general tax law. Homer v. Commonwealth, 337.
Works of art are not taxable as 64 household furui-
ture." (C. P.) Appeal of Henry C. Lea, 61.
The State tax of three mills is not chargeable on
Reading city bonds purchased for the sinking fund.
An Act of Assembly cannot be repealed by non user,
but only by such express provision of a subsequent | (C. P.) Commonwealth v. Reading, 529.
TAXES AND TAXATION-Continued.
Foreign corporations, of like nature to transportation
companies, whose lines extend into and through many
States, and whose facilities for doing business in one
State increase the same in another, where the relative
values of the tangible property representing capital
within and without the State, cannot be accurately
ascertained, are to be taxed in the proportion which
the length of the whole line bears to the length of that
within the State. (C. P.) Commonwealth v. Western
Union Telegraph Co., 331.
Taxation of surplus profits distributed as a stock
Mandamus. to compel levy of tax. See MANDAMUS,
Commonwealth v. Hyde Park, 506.
Title of municipal ordinance for levying a tax.
When sufficient. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. (C. P.)
Hadtner. Williamsport, 138.
Payment of taxes. How far evidence of a settlement.
See POOR LAW. Scranton Poor District v. Directors, 183.
Tax sales. Sale of land as unseated. See EJECT-
Stoetzel v. Jackson, 260.
TELEGRAPH COMPANY, taxation of. See
TAXES AND TAXATION. (C. P.) Commonwealth v.
Western Union Telegraph Company, 331.
TENANTS IN COMMON. Right of one to re-
cover from another for use and occupation. (C. P.)
Norris v. Gould, 187.
TERRE-TENANT, service of writ on.
EJECTMENT. (C. P. Nevins v. Manufacturing Co., 344.
TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY. See WILL.
TITLE. Effect of recording certificate of incorpo-
ration, as to lands described therein. Stockwell v.
Liability of borough officials for appropriating gravel
from adjacent land for the repair of a road. Gilmore
v. Connellsville, 342.
TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES-Continued.
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
property purchased by the estate, no loss to the estate
has been ascertained. Ib.
TOWNSHIP. Contract of township supervisor
for hire of a plow to be used in working on road.
When ultra vires. Somerset Township v. Parson, 298.
TRESPASS. Liability of sheriff for selling chat-ments and incumbrances not mentioned in the agree-
tels when claimant fails to perfect an interpleader. ment, although the deed by the grantor to a third
A covenant to convey land in fee simple, subject to
the reserved right in the grantor to all the coal under-
lying the same, does not bind the covenantee to accept
a deed when the property is subject to certain ease-
(C. P.) Haubert v. Larzelere, 190.
party creating the easement and incumbrances was on
record at the time the covenant was entered into.
Pegg v. Rist. 70.
While the she iff is protected by the Interpleader
Act, the plaintiff in the execution proceeds at his
VOLUNTARY PAYMENTS, when not re-
coverable. See ASSUMPSIT. Union National Bank v.
WAGES. Suit for by servant against master.
See MASTER AND SERVANT. (C. P.) Root v. Clay Te e-
phone Co. 547.
Preference in distribution of assigned estate. See
DEBTOR AND Creditor. Wo f's Appeal, 162.
In distribution of proceeds of execution. See EXE-
CUTION. White's Appeal, 313.
WAIVER, of protest. See BILLS AND NOTES.
Annville National Bank v. Kettering, 65.
WARRANT OF ARREST. See ACTION.
WASTE, injunction to stay. When not granted.
See EQUITY. Leininger's Appeal, 81.
WATERS AND WATER-COURSES. Con-
struction of grant of right to dam a water-course and
flood the adjacent land. Gehman v. Erdman, 278.
Injunction, to prevent obstruction of. See EQUITY.
Bitting's Appeal, 45.
WATER-PIPE. Right of householder on pri-
vate street to connect with. See MUNICIPAL CORPORA-
TION. Boswell v. Philadelphia, 169.
WILL. An employé of a charitable institution to
which property has been bequeathed is a "disinterested
witness" 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.
When a testatrix, who is unable either to read or
write, executes a will in favor of a charitable institu-
tion by setting her mark thereto it is unnecessary
that the will be read to her in the presence of the
subscribing witnesses. Other persons may testify
that the testatrix knew the contents of the instru-
The executrix of such a will is competent to testify
that the will was drawn by testatrix's direction
and was read to her before she affixed her mark. Ib.
When the jurat to the Register's certificate of the
probate of a will states that the witnesses were sworn,
it is immaterial that the word oaths or affirmations is
omitted in the body of the certificate. Ib.
An extraneous unsigned writing may, by force of a
clearly expresed intention in the body of a will, con-
stitute part of the will itself. The reference in the
will must be complete and unambiguous-it cannot be
aided by extrinsic proof, but the identification of the
writing referred to may be by extrinsic parol evidence.
David S. Baker's Appeal, 473.
In whatever order of pages or sheets a will may be
written, it is to be read according to the obvious inhe-
rent sense and adaptation of parts. Ib.
A will signed at the end of the obviously inherent
sense, though not at the end in point of space, is
"signed at the end thereof" within the meaning of
the Wills Act of 1833. Ib.
An instrument in order to be a testamentary writ-
ing must be ambulatory or revocable in its nature;
if upon its delivery interests vest, it cannot be con-
strued as a will. Book v. Book, 150.
A codicil executed within one calendar month of a
testator's death does not so far republish or draw down
to its own date a will executed prior to that period as
to render a charitable bequest contained in the will
void under the Act of April 26, 1855. Carl's Appeal,
When a revocation of a prior deed of trust.
An issue dev. vel non will not be granted, if, upon
the whole evidence, a verdict against the will would
not be permitted to stand. Combs and Hankinson's
The failure of testatrix to carry out intention to
execute a further codicil and consequent validity of
revoking codicil not an issue to be considered by the
Court under an appeal from the register's decision
admitting codicil to probate, a caveat having been
previously filed thereto on the ground of undue
fluence. (O. C.) Marshall's Estate, 440.
The fact that a friend and confidential adviser who
procured the execution of the alleged writing is to
some extent benefited thereby, will not free the con-
testants from the burden of proof of fraud or imposi-
tion. (O. C.) Marshall's Estate, 284.
Construction of Wills. Technical words, or
words of a definite meaning in a will, must be con-
strued according to their legal effect, unless from some
other inconsistent words in the will, it be clear that
the testator intended to use them in some other defi-
nite sense. Carroll v. Burns, 553.
The rule is unquestioned that primâ facie in a will,
the word "issue" means "heirs of the body," and
will be construed as a word of limitation unless there
be explanatory words showing it was used in a re-
stricted sense. Ib.
A clause in a will "that if it is necessary my exec-
utors shall have five years' time to settle up my
estate" will not enable sons, who are executors, and
amply able to pay obligations owed to the estate by
them to postpone payment of their debts, and a settle-
ment of the estate for five years. Riegel's Appeal, 56.
A testator provided, "I give to my sons, Isaac and
James, $1000 each, the interest to be paid them annu-
ally by my executor, who is to be their trustee in this
bequest." One of the sons afterward died, held, that
the intent of the testator was to bequeath vested in-
terests, and that therefore the amount of the legacy
to the deceased son should be awarded to the admin-
istratrix, and not to the residuary legatees. Sproul's
Where the term "male issue" is used in a devise as
descriptio personarum, and is restricted to such as shall
be living at a specified time, it is a word of purchase,
and embraces all male lineal descendants, of whatever
generation in being at the time specified, unless a con-
trary intention clearly appears from the context.
Wistar v. Scott, 461.
Legacies, whether vested or contingent.
Serrill's Estate, 470.
A mistake by the testator in naming the object of
his bounty will be corrected by the Court when a de-
scription is also given in the will, and the context fur-
in-nishes the means of making it, there being no more
presumption in favor of the name than of the descrip-
tion. (O. C.) Packer's Estate, 486.
A clause to the issue of my said three daughters
and the heirs and assigns of such issue, is the equiva-
lent for "issue and their heirs and assigns." Ib.
Construction of will as to abatement of legacies.
(0. C.) Waln's Estate, 301.
Upon a bequest over upon the death of a daughter
to her heirs and next of kin, her husband takes
nothing. Ivins's Appeal, 165.
In a devise of real estate to children in trust for
their children, the share of any child dying without
children to go to surviving heirs, the grandchildren
take per stirpes, and those for whom the trust has
determined are entitled to partition. (O. C.) Mal-
seed's Estate, 368.
A devise and bequest "to my wife of all my estate
composed of stocks and bonds, etc., real and personal
estate to enjoy during her natural life," and that “all
the real estate, stocks, and bonds, etc., remaining"
after her death be sold to certain persons, held, that
the word "remaining" by its context authorized the
widow to dispose of so much of the personalty as she
in her discretion should require. (O. C.) Jacoby's
The reasonable construction of the words “child or
children" in a will limits them to those in being, or
likely to be born of an existing marriage. (0. C.)
Sharpe's Estate, 419.
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.
A legacy of "fifteen shares of second preferred C. V.
R. R. stock" is a general legacy. The fact that at the
date of the will and subsequently to the time of his
death the testator owned fifteen shares of the stock
does not render it specific. Ib.
Other Matters. Where a testator after providing
for certain annuities 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 its collection.
Grim's Appeal, 273.
Devise of property "in trust and confidence" that
the devisee will faithfully carry out certain verbal in-
structions of the testator creates a trust which will be
sustained. (O. C.) Franken's Estate, 455.
What words will work an equitable conversion.
Townsend and Hartshorne's Appeal, 443.
Liability of devisee for interest on incumbrances.
Dreer v. Penna. Co. 527.
A lapsed share of the residue goes to the next of
kin if it consists of personalty, and to the heir, if of
realty. (C. P.) Everman v. Everman, 417.
A testamentary power of sale includes a power to
mortgage, and survives to an administrator d. b n.
c. t. a. Fidelity Co. v. Wurfflein, 28.
Will construed as not limiting the survival of power
to sell by surviving executors. Lippincott v. Phila
delphia Trust Co., 69.
Liability of executor continuing business under
power in will. See DECEDENTS' ESTATES. Cline's Ap-
Interest on advancements, when payable. See
INTEREST. Grim's Appeal, 273.
Interest on legacies. Townsend and Hartshorne's
WITNESSES. See EVIDENce.
Injunction to en-
When a good exercise of a power of appointment. force ordinance against. See EQUITY. (C. P.)
Rawle's Appeal, 152.
liamsport v. McFadden, 269.