ΤΟ

ABANDONMENT.

See LAND, 4.

ACCOUNT RENDER.

1. Query, If judgment can be entered for
the defendant on a report of auditors in ac-
count render, finding that the defendant is
in surplusage? McCall v. Crousillat.

PAGE 7
2. But the law is well settled, that the de-
fendant may maintain an action of debt
against the plaintiff, for the amount so
found in surplusage.
ibid.

ACTIONS.

See ASSUMPSIT, 6, 7. LIEN, 4. TROVER, 1.
1. An action for rent by the lessor against
the lessee is transitory. So is covenant by
the assignee of the reversion, under the
statute of 32 Hen. 8. c 34.; but debt by an
assignee of the reversion is local. Hen-
wood v. Cheeseman.

ACTS OF ASSEMBLY.
See BANKRUPT, 1. LIEN, 4.

500

1. An act of assembly declaring, that an offi-
cer may be removed, on the application of
certain persons, means, that he shall not be
removed without such request. The Com-
monwealth v. Sutherland.
145
2. When a law, providing for the appoint-
ment of officers by the Governor, and limit-
ed to a period of years, is continued by a
subsequent law for a further period, the
commissions of such officers endure only
for the time to which the law was origi-
nally limited; if there is nothing in such
subsequent law inducing a belief, that the
legislature contemplated taking away the
power of appointment from the Governor,
and especially if material changes are
ibid.
made in the first law.

3. Courts have power to declare an act of
assembly void, but it ought to be exercis-
ed only in a very clear case. Moore v.
Houston
169
4. Though an act of assembly repeals a for-
mer act, yet if from the whole view of it,
it is evident, that the legislature intended
certain parts of the former act to have a
temporary continuance, it is not an imme-
diate repeal as to such parts.
ibid.
5. The 25th section of the act of 28th March,
1814, appears to be confined to preventing

1. A plaintiff who sues as administrator cum
testamento annexo during the absence of
the executor, must aver in his declaration,
that such executor continued to be absent
at the time of bringing the action; and an
omission to do so is fatal. Lewis v.
Ewing.

44

2. But if the defendant puts in a plea to the
merits, the error is cured.
ibid.

3. But such defect is not cured when judg
ment is obtained by default for want of an
affidavit of defence; nor by the act of 21st
ibid.
March, 1806.
4. Where bonds belonging to an intestate
were assigned by him to the husband of
one of his daughters, as an advance of her
share of his estate, held, that the obligor
who became afterwards administrator
might, in a suit by the assignee of such
husband, set-off the proportion overpaid
by him, in settling the debts of the intes-
tate, if it did not appear, that the obligor
gave such assignee reason to suppose, that
he had no set-off. Dasher v. Leinawea-
200
ver, jun.
5. Administrators' accounts passed by the
Orphans' Court, are prima facie evidence
of the estate of the intestate, and of the
debts paid by the administrator, but not
conclusive.
ibid.

AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENCE.

1. Bonds with a collateral condition are not
within a rule of Court requiring an affida-
vit of defence in all actions of debt or con-
tract for the payment of a specific sum of
250
Boas v. Nagle.
money.
2. Such a rule of Court ought to receive a
strict construction.
ibid.

AGREEMENT.

1. Parties to an agreement must be acquaint-
ed with the extent of their rights, and the
nature of the information they can call for
respecting them, else they will not be

bound. But where the parties treat upon the basis that the fact which is the subject of the agreement is doubtful, and the consequent risk each is to encounter, is taken into consideration in the stipulations assented to, the contract will be valid, notwithstanding any mistake of one of the parties, provided there be no concealment or unfair dealing by the opposite party that would affect any other contract. Perkins v. Guy. PAGE 327 2. Where the defendant agreed on a sale of land to refund the money in case the plaintiff could not hold the land by law, but after an action and trial at Court should lose the same, held, that where an ejectment was afterwards brought for the land by one of several heirs, and after a jury sworn, the attorney of the plaintiff, (who had given notice to the defendant,) being convinced that the title of the plaintiff was not good, fairly and bona fide, made a compromise, aud a verdict was taken for the plaintiff in the ejectment by agreement, the plaintiff is not bound to stand other ejectments, but may demand repayment of his money. Dickey v. Schreider. 413

1. A. and B. seised of land in fee, as tenants in common, two-thirds belonging to A. and one-third to B. agreed to sell it to the defendants, securing an annuity charged on the land, and constituted one of the defendants their attorney to sell parcels of the land in the names of A. and B. reserving ground rents, payable to A. and B. and their heirs, as tenants in common, and when sufficient was sold to produce the amount of the annuity, A. and B. were to convey the residue of the land to the defendants; in the mean time, the defendants to pay the annuity; but in case sufficient was not sold in 15 years, A. and B. were to sell on ground rents themselves, sufficient to produce the annuity; and then convey the residue to the defendants; the defendants to be, in all events, responsible for the annuity till secured out of the land: held that this annuity was descendable to the heirs of A. and B. according to their interest in the land, and did not, on A's death survive to B. nor go to A's administrator; though there was a covenant by the defendants with A and B. and their heirs, to pay the annuity to them and their heirs for the premises, and also that nothing in the agreement contained, should prejudice the right of the said A. and B.

1. The Supreme Court will not entertain an appeal from a judgment of the Orphans' Court, entered pro forma and without prejudice. Appeal of George West.

92 2. It will not proceed in such cases, even with the consent of parties. ibid.

3. An appeal lies from a judgment before a justice of the peace upon a scire facias. Guilky v. Gillingham.

93

4. To warrant an appeal by the defendant from the judgment of a justice of the peace, it must appear that a recognisance was taken as prescribed by law ibid.

5. If on appeal from a justice the cause of action be laid in the narr. on a day subsequent to the commencement of the suit before the justice, is error. MLaughän v. Parker. 144

6. Where the recognisance given on appeal by defendant from an award of arbitrators was only conditioned for the payment of the costs, but the plaintiff afterwards filed a declaration, the defendant pleaded, issue was joined, and the cause continued on the trial list for several years, it was held that the bail was waved by the plaintiff. Zeig ler v. Fowler.

238

7. Where, upon appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace for less than 100 dollars, the sum awarded by arbitrators exceeded the sum of 100 dollars, and interest thereon, up to the time of the award, held that the justice had not jurisdiction. Laird v. McConachy

290

8. If an appeal by the plaintiff, from a judgment of a justice of the peace, on an award of referees in favour of the defendant for a certain sum, the defendant recover a less sum in the Common Pleas, the plaintiff is not entitled to costs. Bowman v. Bear.

that the party should give security for the
payment of certain sums of money to A,
or her agent, if required, is void for un-
certainty. Barnet v. Gilson.
340
2. In an award, the sum for which judg-
ment is to be entered, must be expressly
mentioned, or reference made to some-
thing extrinsic, by which is may be ascer-
tained. Burkholder v. M Ferran. 421
3. A writ of error lies on the report of arbi-
trators, appointed under the act of 20th
March, 1810. Sicard v. Peterson. 468
4. An award by such arbitrators of a sum of
money to the plaintiff, "on condition of
giving possession to the defendant, of the
goods, chain machinery, and all other ar-
ticles belonging to the factory, lately
under the direction of the plaintiff," is bad
for uncertainty.
ibid.

5. An award in a suit on a policy of insu-

principle not arising out of the evidence,
and no way relating to the cause, shall not
be taken advantage of; but where an er-
roneous principle had a direct operation
on the evidence, and withdrew the atten-
tion of the jury from other points, it was
held to be fatal. Deal v. M Cormick, 343
5. It is not fair to select a few sentences
from the charge of the Court; the whole
must be taken together. Carothers v. The
lessee of Dunning.

373
6. It is not error for the Judge to state the
evidence truly, declining to give an opi-
nion on points on which no opinion is re-
quested.

ibid.
7. With inaccuracies of a Judge in summing
up evidence, this Court has nothing to do.
Henwood v. Cheeseman.

BOARD OF PROPERTY.

500

sufficient to establish a claim against the
defendant, is as much as saying, that the
plaintiff had no cause of action, and is final

and conclusive. M Dermott v. The Uni-
ted States Insurance Company.

604

VEY, 4

1. Case lies for debauching a man's daugh-
ter and getting her with child, by which
he lost her service, &c. and is the most
proper form of action. Ream v. Rank.
215

CERTIORARI.

See Acrs oF ASSEMBLY, 5.
1. A certiorari lies from the Supreme Court
to remove the proceedings of two of the
aldermen of the city of Philadelphia, un-
der the act of 6th April, 1802. Lenox v.
McCall.
95

COMMON RECOVERY.

1. Query, Whether a common recovery suf-

1. An overt act charged to be done by one
conspirator in pursuance of the conspiracy
is to be considered as the act of all. Col-
lins v. The Commonwealth.
220

2. A conspiracy to defraud, by means of
false pretences and false writings in the
form and similitude of bank notes, and
in pursuance thereof, uttering as a ge-
nuine bank note one of such writings,
knowing that no such bank existed, and
that the note was of no value, is punish-
able by hard labour under the acts of 5th
April, 1790, and 4th April, 1807.

CONSTITUTION.

See OFFICES, 1, 2.

ibid.

1. A state bankrupt law is not a law impair-
ing the obligation of contracts, within the
spirit and meaning of the constitutions of
the U. S. and State of Pennsylvania. Far-
mers' & Mechanics' Bank v. Smith. 63
2. The legislature had a right to pass a law
for trial, by courts martial, of drafted mi-
litia who should refuse or neglect to march
to the place of rendezvous, agreeably to
the orders of the Governor, founded on
the requisitions of the President of the
United States. Moore v. Houston. 169
3. Where the states are prohibited express-
ly by the constitution of the United States
from the exercise of power, all their pow-
er ceased from the adoption thereof; but
where the power of the state is taken
away by implication they may continue to
act until the United States exclude them.
ibid.

4. The authority of the state does not cease
in the latter case where Congress have
legislated partially on a subject over
which they might exercise exclusive pow
ibid.

er.

5. The Court have power to declare an act
of assembly void, but it ought to be exer-
cised only in a very clear case. . ibid.
CONTRACT.

1. It is for the jury to decide, whether a

contract was rescinded when it depends
on a variety of disputed facts. Youst v.
Martin.
423

CONVICTION.

1. A conviction for doing wordly business on
the sabbath, under the act of 22d April,
1794, is good, if it follows the form pre-
scribed in the law, though it does not state
the time when or place where the work
was done, or the nature of it. The Com-
48
monwealth v. Wolf.

2. The proper mode of proceeding, for this
offence, is by conviction, not by a qui tam
action.
ibid.

CORPORATION.

See ASSUMPSIT, 1, 2.

1. Books of a corporation are evidence in
disputes between members of the corpo-
ration; especially if produced on the call
of the adverse party. But they are not
evidence against strangers. The Com-
monwealth v. Woelper.

29

2. Where a charter required two-thirds to
form a quorum, and it was stated on the
minutes, that on due invitation, the corpo-
ration met, and it was not usual to men-
tion on the minutes the names or number
of those present, this was held to amount
to saying that two-thirds assembled. ibid.
3. Where a congregation was incorporated,
and a power given "to make rules, bye
"laws, and ordinances, and to do every
"thing needful for the good government
"and support of the congregation," held,
that the corporation had power to make a
bye law, vesting the appointment of in-
spectors of their elections in the president
ibid.
of the corporation.

4. So, also, that they had power to make a
bye law, prohibiting tickets from being
counted at an election, which had other
things on besides the names.

ibid.

5. Having an eagle engraved on such tickets
is a violation of the bye law.
ibid.
6. Under the charter of the German Lathe-
ran Congregation in and near the city of
Philadelphia, aliens otherwise qualified,
are entitled to vote.

ibid.

7. Assumpsit lies against a corporation on an
implied contract. Overseers of North
Whitehall v. Overseers of South White-
hall.
117

COSTS.

See SHERIFF, 1, 2, 3. 5, 6, 7, 8. Quo
WARRANTO, 2.

1. Where the plaintiff brought debt in the
Common Pleas on a single bill for 100
dollars, due on the sale of a horse, and
the defendant set up a warranty of the
horse and breach thereof, in consequence
of which the jury gave the plaintiff a ver-
dict for 85 dollars and 31 cents, and 6