[Beck v. City of Philadelphia.] own funds, the discretion of the trustees must be controlled by that intention. The decree at Nisi Prius is reversed; and it is ordered and decreed that the bill be dismissed at the costs of the appellees. McAllister versus Samuel. The real as well as personal property of an insolvent debtor vests in his trustees at the time of his discharge; a formal assignment by the debtor is not necessary to pass it. ERROR to the District Court, Philadelphia. Charles McAllister, the plaintiff in error, was plaintiff, and the defendants in error, namely, David Samuel and Joseph M. Moss, as garnishees of Joseph L. Moss and Isaac Phillips, trading as R. & I. Phillips, were defendants below. The plaintiff obtained judgment against R. & I. Phillips, on the 22d July, 1837; and on the twentieth day of October, 1837, he issued the attachment execution in this case, which was served on the same day. Upon the trial it appeared that the original defendants, on March 22, 1837, had executed to the defendants (garnishees) an assignment, which was not recorded within thirty days, and which was held by this Court (in Weber v. Samuel, 7 Barr 499) to be voidable by creditors; and on June 22, 1837, another assignment, which in the same case has been holden to be invalid, because, while it stipulated for a release, it did not assign all the property of the assignors. On the day of the service of this attachment the garnishees had in hand assigned property, and the proceeds thereof, more than sufficient to pay the judgment in this case. On October 2, 1837, the original defendants presented their petitions for the benefit of the Insolvent Laws, and on the nineteenth day of October, 1837, were severally discharged under the insolvent laws; they omitting, however, to execute the assignment required by the Act of 1836. On September 29, 1838, the Court of Common Pleas made the following order, in conformity with which they severally executed the assignments required by law : "Sept. 29, 1838, on motion of J. Randall, Esq., the court permit the petitioners, Joseph L. Moss and Isaac Phillips, to sign the assignments annexed to their petitions, and direct the [McAllister v. Samuel.] date of said assignments to be filled up as of this day, and that the time from which said assignment shall take effect shall thereafter be determined by the proper authority, and the court refuse to alter the appointment of assignees made at the time the petitioners were sworn and discharged, to wit, in the term of December, 1837." The judge charged as follows: "There is no question of fact involved in this case; it is a mere question of law. If the deeds of assignment of March 22, 1837, and June 22, 1837, be void, the only party entitled to take advantage of such fact, or to recover the estate purporting to be assigned by them, is the trustee of Mr. Phillips and Mr. Moss under the insolvent laws, who have not only all the rights of the insolvents, but all the rights of the creditors. Your verdict must therefore be for defendants." This charge was excepted to. fendants; judgment was entered error taken out. Error was assigned to the charge. Verdict was rendered for deaccordingly, and this writ of The case was argued by Cuyler for plaintiff in error. St. Geo. T. Campbell, for defendant in error, and on behalf of Daniel L. Miller, Jr., the trustee of the insolvents. H. M. Phillips in reply. The opinion of the court was delivered Dec. 29, 1851, by BLACK, C. J.-The question presented for decision in this case is whether the trustees of R. & I. Phillips, insolvent debtors, acquired title to their property by the discharge, or whether, in order to pass the estate and vest it in the trustees, it was necessary that a formal assignment should be made by the insolvents. The same point, upon precisely the same state of facts, arose in the case of Moncure v. Hanson, decided in April last, and reported in 3 Harris 385. This court then held that the estate vested in the trustees at the time of the discharge. Where a question has been once deliberately settled after solemn argument, it ought not to be disturbed, unless it be so manifestly erroneous that it cannot be supported without doing violence to reason and justice. But the defendants in error have something besides mere authority in their favor. We have reconsidered the case of Moncure v. Hanson, and have heard attentively an able argument, in which the opinion of Mr. Justice BELL was subjected to a minute and careful analysis, yet we have not either seen or heard anything to shake our confidence in the soundness of it. The judgment is therefore affirmed; and the cases of Catherwood v. Phillips, Farmers' Bank v. Phillips, and Houston v. [McAllister v. Samuel.] Phillips, being in all respects similar to this, and having been submitted to the court on the same argument, the judgments in those cases are also affirmed. 17 3 116 e 25 SC 91 Road in Moore Township. 1. An order for the appointment of road viewers not having been acted on, the court, at the next sessions, without any reason for so doing being assigned on the record, appointed other viewers, who made report which was ultimately confirmed. It was Held, that in the absence of objection or exception made at the time, the court below was right in treating the report as valid. This court will presume that the viewers were changed for good reason. 2. In a road case, this court will not reverse for an objection which was not brought to the notice of the court below. 3. Reviewers of a road reported in favour of a road differing somewhat from that reported by the first viewers, and exceptions being filed to the report of the reviewers, it was set aside, and the first report confirmed; application was made on the same day for the appointment of another set of reviewers, under the petition for review: Held, that the refusal of the court to do so was not a ground of error. CERTIORARI to the Court of Quarter Sessions of Northampton county. After other views had been had, the Court of Quarter Sessions of Northampton county, on petition presented at January Sessions, 1848, appointed viewers to view the route of a proposed road, to lead from the public road from Scholl's Mill to the Lehigh Water Gap, thence by the nearest and best route to the public road leading from Bethlehem to Klecknersville, the whole distance being within Moore township. No order was issued, it was said, in consequence of its having been discovered that exceptions might be taken to some of the viewers. At the next April Sessions, the court, on the same petition, appointed other viewers in lieu of those appointed in January. In July, 1848, on account of the relationship of one of the viewers to an owner of land over which it was proposed the road should pass, the court substituted another person in his stead, and the viewers designated reported to August Sessions, in favor of the road, and their report was approved. At the next Sessions, viz. in November, 1848, a petition was presented for a review. Reviewers were appointed, and at the next Sessions the order was continued, but at January Sessions, 1849, a report was presented, signed by five of the reviewers, reporting in favor of a road differing from the one reported by the viewers. To the report of the reviewers exceptions were filed, and on the 23d January, 1851, their report was set aside, and the report of the viewers confirmed absolutely. [Road in Moore Township.] On the same day, application was made to the court to appoint another set of reviewers under the old petition, as it was expressed in the endorsement on the petition for review. The court refused to do so. On the 24th Jan., 1851, the order to open the road was issued, and on the 13th March, 1851, the certiorari was issued in the case. One exception made in this court, was, that "the court on the same petition appointed the set of viewers at the January Sessions, 1848, and another set at April Sessions, 1848, without any cause shown, and without and against the consent or notice to the owners of the land, over which the road was to be laid out." It was alleged by the adverse counsel, that this exception was not taken in the court below. The case was argued by Thrie, for exceptants. The opinion of the court was delivered Dec. 29, 1851, by BLACK, C. J.-At January Sessions, 1848, a petition was presented to the Court of Quarter Sessions praying for viewers to lay out a road in Moore township from Scholl's Mill to the Lehigh Water Gap; and viewers were appointed accordingly. At April Sessions, the order being unexecuted, the court appointed another set of viewers, without assigning any reason on the record for doing so. At August Sessions the viewers appointed in April made report in favor of the road as prayed for in the petition. It does not appear that any of these proceedings were objected to at the time they were had, nor was any exception, based on their irregularity, filed against the report. The court below therefore was right in treating the report as a regular and valid one. We cannot doubt that the viewers were changed for some good reason. Every court is entitled to that presumption in favor of its act, where nothing appears to the contrary. It is enough for us that the proceeding, which is now complained of, was acquiesced in down to the time it was assigned for error here. An objection not brought to the notice of the court below cannot, and, for very obvious reasons, ought not to be considered here. The opposers of the road were furnished by the statute with two modes of preventing the report of viewers from being confirmed absolutely. One was to have it set aside on exceptions, and the other to petition for a review. Supposing, apparently, that it would be either useless or improper to attempt the former, they adopted the other branch of the alternative. Reviewers were appointed, who reported in favor of nearly the same road. The parties opposed to the road excepted to this report of reviewers, and 17 118 156 143 17 118 199 195 [Road in Moore Township.] on their exception it was set aside. After that there was nothing left in the way of a final confirmation of the first report. The counsel of two persons who had petitioned for the review asked the court to appoint a new set of reviewers and issue a new order on the old petition. We are not called upon to say whether or not it would have been erroneous to grant such a request so made; but we do not hesitate to say that there was certainly no error in refusing it. The order of the Quarter Sessions is therefore to be affirmed. Order affirmed. Commonwealth versus Hartman. The school laws of 1848 and 1849, providing for the establishment throughout the Commonwealth, of common schools for the education of individuals between the ages of five and twenty-one years, are not unconstitutional. THIS was an appeal by Hartman and others from the decree of the Quarter Sessions of Lehigh county. The appellants, Hartman and five others, had been elected school directors of Lowhill township, Lehigh county. They organized by electing the officers required by the common school law, and made provision for the education of the poor children in that township, but refused to comply with the provisions of the Acts of Assembly of 1848 and 1849, requiring them to provide for the establishment of common schools in that township: and they refused to resign. A petition was presented to the Court of Quarter Sessions, on April 30, 1849, praying the court to declare their offices vacant, and to appoint substitutes. The court granted a rule upon them to appear and answer; and on May 5, 1849, JONES, J., vacated their office and appointed others in their stead, to act until the next annual election for directors. The objection made on the part of Hartman and others was that the school laws of 1848 and 1849 were unconstitutional, as being at variance with the provision in the first section of the 7th article of the Constitution of Pennsylvania, which is as follows: Sect. 1. "The legislature shall, as soon as conveniently may be, provide by law for the establishment of schools throughout the state, in such manner that the poor may be taught gratis." It was provided in the Act of Assembly of 11th April, 1848, "That the common school system, from and after the passage of this Act, shall be deemed, held, and taken to be adopted by the several school districts in this Commonwealth," &c. In the Act of 7th April, 1849, it is provided, "That a system of common school education be and the same is hereby deemed, |