DECREE. The absolute confirmation of an ad- ministrator's account in the Orphans' Court is a final decree, and if unappealed from is conclusive as to all matter contained therein. Schaeffer's Appeal, 323. See EQUITY PRACTICE.
DEDICATION. Mention of a street, laid out by a municipality on its public plan but not opened, as a boundary in a deed, is not a dedication to the public of the soil of the street. In re Opening of Brooklyn St., 56.
DEED. Whether an informal instrument is a conveyance or an agreement to convey, must be de- termined by intention of the parties derived from the instrument itself, and, where it is doubtful, from the circumstances attending its execution. Phillips v. Swank, 561.
DURESS. Where after a conviction for a con- spiracy to defraud creditors by means of a fraudulent execution and sale, the defendant gives to his creditors, who have resold the goods, a bond to secure them against the claims of the fraudulent vendees, such bond cannot be avoided as given under duress where no threats have been made by the obligees, although the defendant has given it in the hope that having satisfied his creditors he will receive a light sentence. Avery v. Layton, 329.
EASEMENT. An alley dedicated by parol will be presumed to have been intended for the use of the adjacent properties, in such manner as an alley may be ordinarily used, and its use will not be restricted to those purposes to which it has in time past been put, when circumstances demanding a change arise. Mc Elhone's Appeal, 21.
An instrument in the following words: "i do herby agree tht Jonathan Phillips shall have the land wich he is posetion of now for the labor he don for me over age and this shall be his wrecept for all my writes and claims aganst the land," is an agreement to connections with city sewers. Id. vey and not a conveyance. Id.
A husband conveyed to a trustee, "in trust, how ever, for the said K. (the grantee's wife), and for her sole and separate use; the said party of the second part to convey by good and sufficient deed to the said K. the within premises in fee simple." The grantee duly conveyed to the wife a fee simple; held, the wife took a fee simple and not merely a separate use. Warden v. Lyons, 129.
An alley used for drainage purposes may be occu- pied for the purpose of putting under the same con-
A continuous and apparent servitude imposed by an owner on one portion of his estate for the benefit of another passes, in the absence of express reservation or agreement, to the purchaser of the dominant portion at private or judicial sale. Zell v. First Universalist Society, 221.
Rule applied to an alley. Id.
Where an easement is claimed over certain pro- perty, evidence that at a sale of the servient land the owner of the easement endeavored to purchase, is not admissible as showing that at the time he claimed no easement. Id.
A. took a conveyance from B. of her life interest in a certain estate, the rest of which A. controlled, for an expressed consideration, which was the value of her life interest, on the supposition that the estate amounted to a certain sum; by a collateral agreement this consideration was to be varied when the true value of the estate appeared; it was conceded that the intent of the parties was that A. should pay B. an annuity of six per cent. of the value of so much of the estate as B. was entitled to for life; held, A. was a purchaser of the estate under a binding agreement, and obtained an award in the nature of a con- ment to pay the annuity, and not an agent or bailee, and the fact that part of the estate was after the sale lost did not relieve A. or his executor from liability to pay the annuity. Coxe's Appeal, 362.
How deed absolute on face is converted into mort- gage. See MORTGAGE. Sankey v. Hawley, 550. DELIVERY. Place of delivery of heavy articles. See CONTRACT. Wisecarver v. Adamson, 151.
DESERTION. Where one who has deserted his family is the recipient under a will of an income over which he has absolute control, he is compellable to contribute to the support of his family from the same, irrespective of the character of his interest under the will. Decker v. Directors of Poor, 401.
DIVORCE. Where a husband is forced by the conduct of his wife to leave the house in which they reside, he cannot allege desertion by her. Powers's Appeal, 425.
Indignities to the person of the husband offered by the wife are not grounds of divorce. Id.
Action of Common Pleas with reference to alimony and counsel fees reversed for abuse of discretion. Id. Amendment refused in Supreme Court. See AMEND- MENT. Id.
DRAFT. Duty of bank receiving draft for collec- tion. See BANKS AND BANKING. Harvey v. Girard Nat. Bank, 523.
See SURFACE SUPPORT. Williams v. Hay, 469. EJECTMENT. B. gave A. the refusal of certain land for $3000 if paid within six months. A. made a contract to sell to X. for $8000. By a tripartite agree- ment, X. was to pay $3000 in two instalments to B. and to receive a deed from B. when the full $8000 had been paid. X. paid only $2000. B. brought eject- ditional verdict for $1287.65, against X. without notice to A. and followed it by a writ of habere facias, under which he obtained possession. A. subsequently ten- dered the amount due to B. and a tender being refused brought ejectment; held, he was not bound by the ver- dict against X. and was entitled to recover. McCul- lough v. Staver, 213.
An ejectment on an equitable title is in effect a bill for specific performance and a recovery will not be permitted unless the plaintiff would be entitled to the interposition of a chancellor. Reno v. Moss, 357.
In an equitable ejectment the Judge sits as a chan- cellor, and must weigh the evidence for himself and not allow his own judgment to be overruled by the verdict of the jury. Id.
The jury in an equitable ejectment constitutes a species of advisory council to the Judge, and the case should be submitted to it where the Judge finds from the state of the testimony that he could conscionably sustain a verdict either way, according as the jury may find. Hess v. Calender, 374.
Where a plaintiff claims by a parol contract for the purchase of land he must show clearly the contract of sale complete in its terms, and such partial per- formance, including taking possession in pursuance of the contract, as would render it inequitable to re- scind it. Reno v. Moss, 357.
Where, under a rule of Court compelling parties in ejectment to file abstracts of title and statements of claim and defence and confining the evidence at trial
to the facts respectively affirmed and denied by the parties, the defendant sets up an adverse possession of land, which apparently falls within the lines of the plaintiff's brief, he may show the lines on the ground to which his possession extended. Ireland v. Bagaley, 240.
Judgment confessed in an amicable action of eject- ment is not within the Act of April 4, 1877, allowing an appeal to the Supreme Court, where the record does not show that judgment was entered by virtue of a power of attorney. Limbert's Appeal, 20.
So, whether the authority to confess be in writing or not. Swartz's Appeal, 150.
In ejectment the question whether the premises in dispute are included within a certain tract, is for the jury, although there has been no dispute as to the inclusion prior to the litigation before the court. Putnam v. Tyler, 33.
the condition that the redemption must be within a reasonable time, and where three years have elapsed, and the property has greatly increased in value, will not decree a re-conveyance. Salsbury v. Black, 145.
Where the owner of bonds, which have been fraud- ulently transferred by his bailee to the defendant, seeks to recover the same, he must show that the bonds in the defendant's hands are identical with those delivered to the bailee or he cannot recover. Klein's Appeal, 479.
The equitable doctrine that one seeking the aid of a Court to obtain possession of his land must, as a con- dition of recovery, compensate one who has, in good faith and in belief that he has a valid title, made per- manent improvements, does not apply to actions of ejectment at law; in such proceedings payment for improvements can be obtained only by way of set-off or in mitigation of damages. Putnam v. Tyler, 33.
A sheriff's sale of certain land having been adver- tised was postponed two days. Two hours before the second time fixed, the lessees of the land tendered the
ELECTIONS. The jurisdiction of the Courts in contested election cases is purely statutory, and is not to be extended by implication beyond the pro- visions of the Act conferring it. Auchenbach v. Sei-execution plaintiff his debt, interest, and costs on con- vert, 349.
EMINENT DOMAIN. Rules governing the as- sessment of damages for land taken or injured through the exercise of the right of eminent domain, laid down by the Supreme Court. Baltimore & Phila. R. R. Co. v. Springer, 143.
Advantages and disadvantages to the property as a whole are to be considered, not the advantage and disadvantage of each separate field as a separate property. Id.
dition of an assignment of the judgment. This was refused. The lessees then obtained a stay for two days, and applied to the Court for an order of subrogation setting forth the date of their lease, which was sub- sequent to the lien, that they had made large expendi- tures, and that the sale was without notice to them. They did not, however, set forth any particulars of the expenditures, annex a copy of the lease, or deny that they knew the sale was to take place: held, subrogation was properly refused on the ground that the tender was conditional, the petition evasive, and the petition-
Advantage accruing to one property cannot be set off against the disadvantage suffered by another prop-ers lacking in diligence. Appeals of Forest Oil Co., 157. erty of the same owner.
An owner cannot arbitrarily divide his property so as to exclude from the consideration of the jury the advantage secured in one place while recovering for disadvantages suffered in another. Id.
Application of Statute of Limitations in cases of in- jury arising from exercise of right of eminent domain. Landes v. Borough of Norristown, 212.
Evidence of the value of minerals under the surface of land taken, cannot be given. Reading & Pottsville R. R. Co. v. Balthaser, 253.
To show advantage to a piece of land from the es- tablishment of a railroad, the fact that additional fa- cilities for the transportation of products of the land are afforded may be shown, but not the amount of re- duction of rates on a railroad used by the plaintiff and existing before the building of the defendant's road, consequent upon such building. Id.
EQUITABLE EJECTMENT. See EJECTMENT. McCullough v. Staver, 213; Reno v. Moss, 357; Hess v. Calender, 374.
EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL. See ESTOPPEL. EQUITY. A., a man of advanced years, made a conveyance to his son-in-law B. for the consideration of support. A. filed a bill to set aside the conveyance on the ground of undue influence and failed, and had a decree made against him for $400 costs. A. and B. then agreed that B. should pay A. $150 per annum in lieu of support. B. issued execution for costs, which was returned nulla bona. He then filed a bill to set off the costs against payment; held, that as A. was destitute, and would be entitled to have the payments due him appraised, if attached, the prayer of the bill should not be granted. Thall's Appeal, 224.
See LUNACY. Meurer's Appeal, 107. See SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.
EQUITY PRACTICE. Where a bill is filed by A. in right of his wife B., and A. is joined in the pleadings and the prayer, if granted, would be partly in B.'s right as assignee of A., and partly in A.'s right, the bill may be taken as a joint bill, and a decree made against A. and B. jointly. Miller's Appeal, 311.
A bill cannot be maintained in the Common Pleas to compel payment of a legacy charged on land. Brotzman's Appeal, 318.
Where a bill charges facts constituting constructive fraud, and also an actual fraud, it may be sustained, although the proofs fail as to the actual fraud charged. Ricketts's Appeal, 229.
A defendant in equity cannot both answer and demur to the whole bill or to the same part of the bill; in such case the answer overrules the demurrer. Bar- bey's Appeal, 226.
A general denial by answer will not excuse the de- fendant from answering specific interrogatories at- tached to the bill. (C. P.) Paper Co. v. Hincken, 227. A decree pro confesso should be vacated when the default in making answer in time is satisfactorily ex- plained. Thall's Appeal, 224.
Where after an answer and reference to a Master, the defendant moves to amend on the argument of ex- ceptions to the Master's report so as to interpose the Statute of Limitations, the motion may be refused at the discretion of the Court. Ricketts's Appeal, 229.
On an appeal from an interlocutory decree the Su- preme Court will not discuss the merits of the case. Barrett's Appeal, 139.
Exception made to this rule (at the request of coun- Where one buys property at a sheriff's sale, and sel) where the question involved was one purely of agrees that the owner may redeem the same without law. Williamsport Passenger Railway Co.'s Appeal, fixing any time for redemption, equity will superadd | 309.
EQUITY PRACTICE-Continued.
The findings of fact by Master not reversed by the Court below, will be given the same weight as a verdict. Appeal of Harris et al., 189.
ERROR. The Supreme Court will not reverse for a trifling error committed during a jury trial which is not the actual or probable cause of injury. Trego v. Peirce, 568.
Where binding instructions are not requested, the Supreme Court will not reverse for a failure to give such instructions, even in case where if asked it would have been error to have refused them. Pa. R. R. Co. v. Page, 52.
Comments or remarks of a Judge having a tendency to unduly weaken the effect of the evidence, are grounds for reversal. Bughman v. Byers, 494.
Erroneous exclusion of evidence cured by admission of the same in another form. See EVIDENCE. Webber v. Commonwealth, 413.
levied on as her husband's. (C. P.) Suplee v. Laflin M'f'g Co., 557.
An inexpert witness may not testify that a person has a particular disease, but he may be asked whether he observed any symptom thereof, ordinarily visible to the inexpert eye. U. B. Mutual Aid Society v. O'Hara, 381.
The testimony of a witness taken at a former trial of a case, since which trial he has died, is admissible on a second trial of the case when the witness, if living, would have been competent. Berg v. McClafferty, 547. Communications to an attorney-at-law, while pre- paring a paper at the instance of all the parties there- to, and made by a party in the presence of all the other parties, are not privileged. Appeal of the Good- win Gas Stove and Meter Co., 1.
On a trial for murder, it appeared that the quarrel between the defendant and the deceased, terminating in the murder, originated by a reference to a conversa- tion with the witness; held, not proper cross-examina-
ESTOPPEL. Where there is evidence that occu- pants of land had notice of a sale made on an execution to ask what the conversation was. Webber v. tion without inquisition, and made no objection thereto, Commonwealth, 413. but peaceably removed therefrom, and that the pro- ceeds of sale were used to pay the debts of occupant's ancestor, the question whether they are estopped from setting up a lack of waiver of inquisition is for the jury. Berg v. McClafferty, 547.
Where the predecessor in title of a plaintiff has made representations that he was not the owner of certain land which the defendant was about to pur- chase, and before purchasing the defendant has refer- red the question of title to counsel, it is proper to instruct the jury that the plaintiff is estopped if the defendant was induced to purchase by the predeces- sor's representations, but not if the inducement was the opinion of counsel. Putnam v. Tyler, 33.
One who is ignorant that he has title to land is not, by standing by and permitting the land to be im- proved by another, estopped from asserting his title. Id.
A guardian by consent to a sale made under an or- der of the Orphans' Court in excess of its authority, and accepting the purchase-money, cannot estop the ward from attacking the validity of the sale. (C. P.) Miller v. Spear, 554.
A member of a board of directors by which a plan of reorganization is passed, by which, if accepted, certain securities held by him would be reduced, and who does not concur in the action of the board, is not estop- ped by his mere membership from proceeding in his individual rights upon his securities. (C. P.) Love v. Phila. & Reading R. R. Co., 573.
Estoppel of bank to deny ownership of depositor. See BANKS AND BANKING. Citizens' National Bank v. Alexander, 473.
Estoppel of owner of stock as against innocent transferee who holds certificate and power in blank. See STOCK. Linnard's Appeal, 40.
ESTREPEMENT. A writ of estrepement will lie at the suit of lien creditors against the owner of land subject to their liens, to prevent waste by him. Duff's Appeal, 491.
A writ of estrepement protects the interest of all having liens on the wasted premises, whether par- ties to the issue of the writ or not. Id.
EVIDENCE. Where a witness has an interest in the question involved in a case, but the result of the case itself cannot affect any action to be brought by or against him, he is not disqualified on the ground of interest. Berg v. McClafferty, 547.
A wife may testify in support of her claim to goods
On a issue of insanity, it is irrelevant to show that the defendant's father had failed in business, and the wages formerly received by the defendant. Id.
In an action to recover for goods furnished, the plaintiff cannot, to show the amount furnished, give in evidence the books of a third person charging the plaintiff with goods furnished to him and shipped directly to the defendant by the third person. Holt v. Pie, 475.
To prove drunkenness, the conduct of the alleged drunken person is material, even to abuse of his family, for from his conduct the jury must to a great extent draw its conclusion as to the truth of the allegation. U. B. Mutual Aid Society v. O'Hara, 381.
Course of dealing may be evidence to explain the in- tent with which the check of a third person was given by a debtor to his creditor. Briggs v. Holmes, 10.
Neither a letter nor the envelope containing it, nor an inclosure therein is admissible to prove that on the day of its date the writer was at the place from which the letter was written and mailed. Jackson v. Emmens, 199.
Bills filed with a mechanic's lien, and whose correct- ness is denied by the affidavit of defence, are not ad- missible in support of the plaintiff's claim. Weaver v. Sheeler, 22.
In an action for negligence against a contractor for blasting, testimony of what the workmen said about the amount of blasting material employed is not evi- dence. McFadden v. Raush, 290.
In an action on a bond given by A. to protect the obligees from the claims of A. and B. on account of certain personal property bought by A. and B. at a sheriff's sale as the property of C., and levied on again and sold by the obligees as C.'s property, evidence that A. has brought an action against the sheriff to recover damages for the sale is admissible. Avery v. Layton, 329.
Where testimony has been given tending to show that a conveyance is the result of a combination to defraud creditors, the declarations of either party to the conveyance may be given in evidence to affect both, although the combination is not conclusively shown, and the evidence of it is circumstantial. Lowe v. Dalrymple, 545.
Declarations of a party to a fraudulent conveyance made after delivery of the deed, but before possession of the premises has been given, are admissible to affect the other party to the deed. Id.
Evidence cannot be given of parol understanding that a note drawn in the usual form was to be paid only on a contingency. (C. P.) Dyott v. Williams, 226.
Oral proof to vary or affect a written instrument, must be confined to what occurred at the execution of it. Heydt v. Frey, 265.
Parol evidence cannot be given that a note for a certain sum, payable at a certain time after date, with interest, was in reality a contract to pay to the payee interest only, and the principal either not at all or to a third person who should receive it as advancement. Id.
Parol evidence to contradict a judgment note should be admitted only when it is such as would require a chancellor to give relief against the instrument. Eng- lish v. Hager, 297.
Where a contract was read and explained to a per- son, who alleged he could neither read nor write, where- by a piano was leased to him with the privilege of purchase within a certain period, and the person exe- cuted it, it is error to admit testimony that at the time of execution the lessor or his agent told him he would have a longer time within which to pay. North v. Williams, 369.
Where letters refer to and confirm a verbal contract, but do not profess to set out all its terms, the verbal ageement may be given in evidence. Holt v. Pie, 475. Silence, when a person is asked to make a contract, is not evidence of assent, even if the request is heard. Royal Ins. Co. v. Beatty, 59.
When evidence is excluded, but afterwards admit- ted in another form so that no injury is done, the Su- preme Court will not reverse for exclusion, even in a capital case. Webber v. Com'th, 413.
Evidence affecting claim of easement. See EASE- MENT. Zell v. First Universalist Society, 221. Evidence in ejectment. See EJECTMENT. Bagaley, 240.
Evidence of notice of want of repair. Township of North Manheim v. Arnold, 218.
Application to be attached to policy to render it evi- dence. See INSURANCE. New Era Life Ass'n v. Musser, 445.
Evidence of value of property taken by virtue of eminent domain. See EMINENT DOMAIN. Reading and Pottsville R. R. Co. v. Balthaser, 253.
Evidence to prove foreign judgment. See FOREIGN JUDGMENT. (O. C.) Pearson's Estate, 559. Evidence of illegitimacy. See ILLEGITIMACY. Meu- rer's Appeal, 109.
EXECUTORS. An executor who has suffered devisees to take possession of land charged with a certain sum payable by instalments, before the time at which, by the will, they are entitled to possession, | and at which the charge begins to be payable, and who has not exacted instalments prior to the said time, is not to be surcharged with the amount of instal- ments which would have fallen due had the charge been payable from the time of taking actual posses- sion of the land. Rhoad's Appeal, 251.
An executor, except in a case of great negligence, will not be surcharged with assets of the decedent which never came into his hands. Dabney and Ver- rier's Appeal, 449.
An executor who has exercised due care in the selection of an agent to collect rents which were to be paid to the executor under an agreement which it was proper to make, will not be surcharged with rents misapplied by the agent. Id.
FACTOR. Where goods are consigned for sale and no price is fixed, the factor has a right to exercise his discretion as to the price to be taken. Conway v. Lewis, 386.
Where a factor writes for instructions as to price, and before receiving an answer determines to accept a price offered, his determination, if made in good faith and as the result of the exercise of his judgment, is within the scope of his authority. Id.
FEE BILL. See SHERIFF. (C. P.) Krouse v. Hart, 466.
FEE SIMPLE. See DEED. Warden v. Lyons, 129. A locomotive engi- neer and a telegraph operator and station agent are fellow-servants within the rule that an employer can- not be held liable for injury caused to an employé through the negligence of a co-employé. Dealey v. Phila. and Read. R. R. Co., 45.
FELLOW-SERVANTS.
A car inspector and a brakeman are fellow-servants within the same rule. Phila. and Read. R. R. Co. v. Hughes, 166. See MASTER AND SERVANT.
FENCE VIEWERS. The Act of March 11, 1842, providing for fence viewers to examine and reg- ulate party fences, apportioning their cost, is a sum- mary remedy to prevent the dilapidation of such fences; boundary lines cannot be established in a pro- ceeding under the Act. Trego v. Peirce, 568.
FERRY. The Act of Assembly giving the exclu- sive right of maintaining a ferry does not require the grantee to acquire landings in fee. Appeal of Doug- lass, 13.
Where such a grantee endeavors to restrain others from interfering with his right, the latter cannot set up as a defence that the grantee has not complied with the provisions of the Act of Assembly conferring the right. Id.
The maintenance of a ferry in such condition that it affords all the accommodation required by the neigh- borhood is a sufficient commencing business in good faith within Art. XVI. § 1, of the Constitution of 1874. Id.
FOREIGN ATTACHMENT. A motion to quash a writ of foreign attachment is directed to the discretion of the Court, and its decision thereon is not reviewable on error or certiorari. Holland v. White, 393.
FOREIGN CORPORATION. The State may prescribe conditions on which foreign corporations may do business within its boundaries. See CORPORATIONS. Etna Fire Ins. Co. v. City of Reading, 209.
FOREIGN JUDGMENT. An office copy of a decree pro confesso of an English Court and a copy of an allocatur of a taxing master not shown to have been confirmed by the Court, do not prove a judgment upon which a recovery can be had in Pennsylvania. (Ó. C.) Pearson's Estate, 559.
An office copy of a record not certified by an official or sworn to have been examined and compared, can- not be received as a proof of the record. ld.
FRAUD. A conveyance of the real estate of a dece- dent, father of the grantor, obtained under the im- pression that the grantee was a brother and for an inadequate consideration, set aside on proof that the grantee was an illegitimate son of the grantor's mother, and that the grantor was illiterate and unable to attend to business. Appeal of E. F. I. Meurer, 109. A mortgage or conveyance given to defraud certain creditors is fraudulent and voidable as to all creditors existing at the time of the transaction. Barrett v. Nealon, 104.
It is a constructive fraud for a trustee to become the
purchaser of the subject of the trust, for a price less than the value thereof, at a sheriff's sale, brought about by his own procurement. Ricketts's Appeal, 229. Whether a deed was given in fraud of creditors, is a question for the jury. Benson v. Maxwell, 446. A deed given by a husband to his son as considera- tion of, and in payment of a debt due to the wife, is not fraudulent as to creditors. Id. See ATTACHMENT UNDER ACT OF 1869. (C. P.) Leunig v. Senior, 379. FRAUDS, STATUTE OF. See STATUTE of FRAUDS.
GARNISHEE. Garnishee entitled to $10 coun- sel fee, although att chiment be discontinued. See PRACTICE (C. P.) Schwartz v. Hall, 406.
GROUND-RENT. The Act of April 25, 1855, providing that where no payment, claim, or demand had been made on account of a ground-rent, and there has been no declaration or acknowledgment thereof within that period by the owner of the premises, a release or extinguishment shall be presumed, is not unconstitutional. Biddle v. Hooven, 390.
An action of covenant sur ground-rent is not within the Act of February 24, 1834, § 34, requiring the widow and heir or devisees of a decedeht to be made parties to an action to charge his real estate with his debts. Rushton v. Lippincott, 47, 97.
But if the plaintiff desire to enforce the judgment in a covenant sur ground-rent against any land of the decedent other than that out of which the rent issues, notice must be given to the widow and heirs or devi- sees. Id. See MORTGAGE.
GUARANTY. Individual guaranty in articles of co-partnership not a portion of the contract of partnership. See PARTNERSHIP. McIntire's Appeal,
GUARDIAN AND WARD. A guardian who in investing his ward's money does not act with ordi- nary business prudence, is liable for the consequent loss, and the fact that he has acted under the advice of counsel will not relieve him. Lechler's Appeal, 505. Where a guardian desires to make a loan of his ward's money upon the security of property already subject to a lien, he should apply to the Orphans' Court for leave to do so. Id.
Where a guardian has invested the funds of his ward in property which the latter is justified in refus- ing to accept, on the ground that to do so would entail a loss, an inquiry will not be ordered to determine whether the guardian should bear a proportionate part of the loss only. Id.
Where a guardian turns over the fund of his wards to their father, and in consideration of the latter agreeing to keep him clear of liability for such trust funds, agrees not to charge any commission, he is not precluded from claiming compensation for other ser- vices rendered as guardian to the wards. Williams's Appeal, 551.
A ward is not estopped by his guardian's consent to a sale made without authority. See ESTOPPEL. (C. P.) Miller v. Spear, 554.
HABEAS CORPUS. Discharge upon habeas corpus will enable the relator charged with a crime to bring an action for a malicious prosecution. Zebley v. Storey, 68.
HIGHWAY. An owner of land abutting on a highway may use a portion of the highway in a rea- sonable manner for temporary purposes, but may not use it for a quasi permanent purpose, e. g., piling lum- ber. Township of North Manheim v. Arnold, 218.
HIGHWAY-Continued.
Negligent driving upon highway. See NEGLIGENCE. Schmidt v. McGill, 485.
Liability of borough for consequences of negligently leaving highway out of repair. See NEGLIGENCE. Bor- ough of Shenandoah v. Erdman, 553. See STREETS.
HIRING. Damages for breach of contract of hir- ing. See CONTRACT. (C. P.) Smiley v. Brownfield, 528.
HUSBAND AND WIFE. Under the Act of May 4, 1855, it is only where a husband neglects to provide for his minor children that the wife is en- tiled to the earnings of such children; it is not suffici- ent that he has not provided for the wife. Eustice v. Plymouth Coal Co., 430.
In addition to the above, the wife must afford a good example to her children and properly educate them. It is therefore a defence to an action for such wages that she is of a bad character for chastity. Id.
A husband who borrows from his wife money which she has obtained from other sources and which is not the proceeds of her wages during coverture, may give to her, as to any other creditor, a preference. Benson v. Maxwell, 446.
A wife may bind her separate estate and property by any obligation given by her as security for the protection of remaindermen, where, by virtue of the Act of May 17, 1871, she takes possession of personalty, to which she is entitled as life tenant. (O. C.) Oak- ford's Estate, 575.
A husband who offers to provide proper physicians for his wife, and who notifies the physician called in by the wife that he will not be responsible for the cost of the medical attendance rendered by said physician, is not liable to pay for services rendered after such notification. (C. P.) Remick v. Crabtree, 31.
Under the Act of June 3, 1887, § 6, a husband taken upon a capias for his wife's tort is entitled to be dis charged on common bail. (C. P.) Reader v. Rosen- dale, 153.
The Act of June 3, 1887, does not render a married woman liable to be arrested on ca. sa, upon a judg- ment for a tort committed during coverture. Vocht v. Kuklence, 518.
Or to be arrested upon a capias ad respondendum. Whalen v. Gabell, 522.
Since the Act of June 3, 1887, a husband is not lia- ble for the torts of his wife committed during cover- ture. Kuklence v. Vocht, 521.
A wife may testify in support of her claim to goods levied on as her husband's. (C. P.) Suplee v. Laflin Manufacturing Co., 557.
Decree made against husband and wife where bill is by husband in right of wife. See EQUITY PRACTICE. Miller's Appeal, 311.
Husband of an heir as purchaser at sale of property for arrears of ground-rent descended to his wife. See MORTGAGE. Rushton v. Lippincott, 97.
When husband's disclaimer is to be filed in joint ac- tion by himself and wife for the latter's use, for in- juries done to her. See PRACTICE. DuBois Borough v. Baker, 384.
See PARENT AND CHILD. Ulrich v. Arnold, 394.
ILLEGITIMACY. A. and B. were reputed sons of C., lived with him and regarded each other as brothers. After C.'s death B. filed a bill charging that A. was not the son of C., but an illegitimate son of D., C.'s wife; it was admitted that both A. and B. were born before the marriage of C. and D. in France, and it appeared that at the time of the marriage C. and D.
« SebelumnyaLanjutkan » |