carries out the agreement, is not a bona fide purchaser of the stock. Hayden v. Charter Oak Driving Park, 27 A. 232, 63 Conn. 142.
SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DIS- TRICTS.
Location of schoolhouse.
his seal, and no other is necessary.-Loraw_v. Nissley, (Pa. Sup.) 27 A. 242; Appeal of Ev- ans, Id.
Searches and Seizures. See "Intoxicating Liquors," 4-6.
Seaworthiness.
1. The discretion of a board of school di- rectors as to the location of schoolhouses is See "Shipping," 1. not subject to the control of equity.-Roth v. Marshall, (Pa. Sup.) 27 A. 945. Failure of board to organize-Appoint- ment of new board.
2. Where six persons elected as members of a school board divide into two equal fac-
tions, and each faction attempts an organiza- See "Husband and Wife," 8-13. tion in the absence of the other, with a view of usurping all the power, and excluding the other from any share of control, no organization of the board is effected, within the meaning of Act April 22, 1863, which requires that an organization of the board shall be had on the first Monday of June, or within 10 days there- after; and hence the court of quarter sessions has authority to appoint a new board, under Act May, 1854, § 9, which provides that, if "all the members of any board of directors shall neglect or refuse any duty enjoined by law," the court of quarter sessions may, on complaint in writing by six taxable citizens of the dis- trict, declare their seats vacant, and appoint others in their stead. Mitchell, J., dissenting. -In re Butler Tp. School Dist., (Pa. Sup.) 27 A. 849.
Legacy to debtor, right of set-off, see "Wills," Setting off judgments, power of justice, see "Justices of the Peace."
3. A parol contract of a school district may be proven though the minutes of the school board contain no reference to it.-Sidney School Furniture Co. v. School Dist. of Warsaw Tp., (Pa. Sup.) 27 A. 856.
4. Section 44 of the school law (Revision, p. 1077) provides that, in every contract be- tween a school teacher and the board of trus- tees, a school month shall be construed to be 20 school days, or 4 weeks of 5 school days each, and any contract made in violation of this section shall have no effect as against the teacher. Held, in an action by a teacher who had been paid by the calendar month, that he could not recover an alleged balance of salary without proof as to how many "school months" there actually were during his service.-Stein- son v. Trustees of School Dist. No. 8, (N. J. Err. & App.) 27 A. 923.
Rescission by school board.
1. Though Rev. St. c. 82, § 130, allows the assignee of an account to sue thereon in his own name, one summoned as trustee cannot deduct by way of set-off from the sum owing by him to the principal defendant an account which another person has assigned to him against such defendant, unless after such as- signment the principal defendant was notified of the assignment and agreed to pay the account to him.-Soule v. Kennebec Maine Ice Co., 27 A. 92, 85 Me. 166.
Pleading set-off in reply.
2. Plaintiff in assumpsit cannot, in a repli- cation to a plea of set-off, set off other claims against defendant, which should properly have been set up in the declaration.-Heath v. Doyle, (R. I.) 27 A. 333.
5. To show rescission by a school district of a written contract in pursuance of a contem- poraneous parol contract, a resolution of the See "Contracts," 4; "Sale," 1. school board, on which notice of rescission was given, is admissible, it being no objection there- to that the other party to the contract was not present at the passing of the resolution.-Sidney Rule in, see "Wills," 23. School Furniture Co. v. School Dist. of Warsaw Tp., (P'a. Sup.) 27 A. 856.
6. The school board having passed a resolu- tion for rescission of the contract, the president of the board did not need a special authoriza- tion to notify the other party thereof.-Sidney School Furniture Co. v. School Dist. of Warsaw Tp., (Pa. Sup.) 27 A. 856.
SHERIFFS AND CONSTABLES. Liability, see "Trespass," 6. Liabilities.
1. Purd. Dig. p. 322, pl. 38, provides that no action shall lie against a constable for any- thing done in obedience to any warrant issued by a justice until demand has been made, or left at his usual place of abode, for a perusal and copy of such warrant, duly certified under his hand, and the same has been neglected for six days thereafter. Held that, where a levy and sale are made by a constable under execu- tion issued by one authorized to issue such writs, failure by defendant in execution to make such a demand is a bar to a recovery from such constable and his surety of damages
from such levy and execution.-Commonwealth | ing lots; these not showing clearly an absence v. Warfel, (Pa. Sup.) 27 A. 763. of redress at law.-Gove v. City of Biddeford, 27 A. 264, 85 Me. 393. Contracts enforceable.
2. Where, after service of a writ, the offi- cer delivers it to plaintiff's attorney without making formal return, the officer may, in an ac- tion by plaintiff against him for damages, show by oral testimony that he complied with the di- rections of plaintiff's attorney as to service. Morgan v. Joyce, (N. H.) 27 A. 225.
3. A peremptory order to a sheriff, with out notice of a hearing thereon, to pay the pro- ceeds from a sale under execution into court, will be set aside.-Dewoody v. Dewoody, (Pa. Sup.) 27 A. 667; Appeal of Ray, Id.
SHIPPING.
See, also, "Marine Insurance." Seaworthiness.
1. In an action involving the seaworthiness of a vessel when she started on a voyage, the certificate of classification showing that she had been classed as A No. 1, when built, for a period of seven years, and that such period had not expired when the voyage commenced. is admissible in evidence.-Broadnax v. Cheraw & S. R. Co., (Pa. Sup.) 27 A. 412. General average bond-Defense of un- seaworthiness.
2. In an action on a general average bond. where the issue is as to the seaworthiness of the vessel when she started on her voyage, and the testimony is conflicting, it is proper to refuse to charge that though there may be a prima facie presumption of unseaworthiness, and the burden on defendant to prove the con- trary, yet, "where it appears from the undis- puted evidence in the case that the vessel sprung a leak or became damaged under cir- cumstances which would not cause such re- sults to an ordinary seaworthy vessel," the bur- den of proof is placed on the vessel owners to show that she was seaworthy. Broadnax v. Cheraw & S. R. Co., (Pa. Sup.) 27 A. 412.
3. In an action on a general average bond, where the issue is as to the seaworthiness of the vessel when she started on her voyage, while the burden of proving unseaworthiness at the commencement of the vessel's voyage is on defendants, who assert it as a defense, yet if it is shown that, shortly after the commencement of the voyage, the vessel, without encountering any stress of weather or any unusual perils of the sea, became so leaky as to be obliged to put into a port of refuge for repairs, the pre- sumption then is that she was unseaworthy when she sailed, and the burden of proving the contrary is then on plaintiffs. Broadnax v. Cheraw & S. R. Co., (Pa. Sup.) 27 A. 412.
See "Benevolent Societies;" "Corporations;" "Religious Societies."
Special Laws.
See "Constitutional Law," 6, 7.
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. Adequate remedy at law.
land belonging to his wife for land of defend- 2. Where a husband agrees to exchange ant, and the title to the land which the husband agreed to convey is still in the wife when the husband sues for specific performance, no de- cree can be made in his favor, since there is Ten Eyck v. Manning, (N. J. Ch.) 27 A. 900. a lack of mutuality of obligation and remedy.-
3. An agreement for the sale of a "lot ad- joining Pavonia Yacht Club, on Bay View avenue," is sufficiently definite to be enforced, if it is shown that the vendor owned only one lot answering to such description.-Champion v. Genin, (N. J. Ch.) 27 A. 817.
4. When a son renting a farm from his fa- ther has been induced by the father's promise to convey or devise him the farm to make ex- pensive and permanent improvements on it, such as a mere tenant would not make by way of repairs, the father having full knowledge of said improvements, specific performance can be enforced by the son's widow and daughter against the father's devisees.-Young v. Young, (N. J. Ch.) 27 A. 627.
5. Defendant, who owned a patent for a cooking utensil, together with complainants, R. facture of household furnishings, and assigned and S., organized a company for the manu the company his patent, each of them sub- scribing for a certain amount of capital stock. The company became insolvent, and a reor ganization was had, under which S. paid out $55,000 in liquidation of debts, relieving de- for, and S. thereby became owner of all the fendant and R. of all personal liability there- capital stock, one-fourth of which he trans- ferred to defendant. S. testified that defend- ant agreed to develop as many specialties as possible, and to assign to the company all pat- organization, defendant agreed that any patents ents therefor. R. testified that, on the first which he might invent in the line of kitchen utensils should "go to the company." Defend- ant testified that the original agreement contem- plated only the patent originally assigned; that a subsequent patent he assigned the company was assigned only because it was a modifica- tion of the first. Held insufficient evidence to warrant a decree compelling defendant to as- sign the company other patents granted him subsequent to the organization of the com- pany.-Eustis Manuf'g Co. v. Eustis, (N. J. Ch.) 27 A. 439.
Performance by complainant.
6. Where certain persons contract to sell land to another, who agrees to take it. and pay the consideration on the delivery of a proper deed, and he demands a conveyance of more land than in equity he is entitled to, and re- fuses to pay the consideration unless his de mand is complied with, and after such refusal the land is conveyed to another, who has full knowledge of the facts, the party making the demand cannot thereafter claim specific per-
formance of the contract, but will be left to his remedy at law.-Pyatt v. Lyons, (N. J. Err. & App.) 27 A. 934.
Spirituous Liquors.
See "Intoxicating Liquors."
STARE DECISIS.
Taxation of corporations.
The question as to the constitutionality of Act June 1, 1889, (P. L. p. 429,) relating to 1. A city's contract with the landowner to taxation of corporations, which makes the cap extend or construct a sewer through his land ital stock of corporations a distinct class of in- cannot be specifically enforced on mere alle vestments for the purpose of taxation, and ex- gations that the land is damaged, and that empts corporations organized exclusively for plaintiff is prevented from using it for build-manufacturing purposes from taxation on their
capital stock, is stare decisis. Commonwealth | money raised for such tax, but paid by the v. National Oil Co., (Pa. Sup.) 27 A. 374; Same v. Mill Creek Coal Co., Id. 375.
STATE LEGISLATURE.
Controversy as to election of members of legis- lature, see "Constitutional Law," 4. Election of members, see "Elections and Vot- ers," 7-9.
county treasurer to the state, with direction that it be applied on an account for which the County was not liable, and in fact so applied. is held by the state as trustee for the county, cannot be considered, as it raises an independ- ent cause of action against the state.-Common- wealth v. Philadelphia County, (Pa. Sup.) 27
jurisdiction of courts. see "Mandamus," 1. Filling vacancies, see "Elections and Voters," See "Frauds, Statute of." 1, 2. Submission of questions to courts by governor or legislature, see "Courts," 1, 2. Failure to elect members
Statute of Limitations.
Filling va- See "Limitation of Actions."
1. Under Const. art. S, § 1, providing that senators and representatives shall hold office "until others are legally chosen and duly qual- ified to fill their places," a failure to elect with- in seven days from the first town meeting, as required by section 5, does not, when there is an incumbent to continue to hold the office, create a vacancy, within the meaning of Pub. St. c. 10, § 27, providing that when, in case of a failure to elect, the office shall become va- cant, the town clerk shall issue his warrant for an election to fill such vacancy.-State v. Perry, (R. I.) 27 A. 606.
Power of adjournment.
2. Under Const. art. 4, § 9, providing that neither house shall, during a session, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than two days, nor to any other place, and the clause requiring the two houses at the May session to meet in grand committee, and count the votes cast for general officers at the April election, the senate has the power to adjourn for more than two days, and to another place, on the same ground on which it has refused to join the house in grand committee, viz. that the house has unseated certain of its mem- bers, and seated a person not elected, in viola- tion of law, and in defiance of the constitu- tion." since the constitution entitles each town to full representation. In re Legislative Ad- journment, (R. I.) 27 A. 324.
3. Under Const. art. 7, § 6, providing that, in case of disagreement between the two houses certified to him by either, the governor may adjourn them to such time and place as he may think proper, the question whether an adjournment of one house, before meeting in grand committee to canvass the votes for the general officers, not acted on in the other house, and certified by the former as a dis- agreement, warrants the governor in adjourn- ing the assembly, is for the governor alone to decide, and the judges of the supreme court cannot review his decision. In re Legislative Adjournment, (R. I.) 27 A. 324.
STATES AND STATE OFFI- CERS.
Adjournment of legislature by governor, see "State Legislature," 3. Jurisdiction to grant pardon, see "Pardon." Liability for expenses connected with adminis- tration of justice, see "Counties." Negligence of officers in collecting taxes, effect on rights of state, see "Taxation," 7-9. Actions.
In an action on the account of the state against a county for taxes on personal proper- ty, settled by the auditor general, under au- thority of Act March 30, 1811, a claim that
Retrospective effect of constitutional amend- ment, see "Constitutional Law," 3. When deemed mandatory, see "Elections and Voters," 3.
Enactment and approval.
1. The court will not go behind a law to see whether Const. art. 3, § 8, requiring notice of proposed legislation to be published 30 days before introduction of the bill, was complied with, but will presume such compliance.-Per- kins v. City of Philadelphia, (Pa. Sup.) 27 A. 356.
2. Act May 18, 1887, (P. L. 118,) relating to the liens of mechanics and others on build- ings, purports to amend, so as to require notice of lien to be given to the owner, and extend to the entire commonwealth, the provisions of Act May 1, 1861, which limits to certain coun- ties the provisions of Act June 16, 1836, relat- ing to the same subject. In the body of the act the title of the act of 1836 is quoted, and so much of the act of 1861 as is intended to be amended and extended is republished, but the act of 1861 is only referred to by reference to Act 1836, "and the several supplements to the said act.' Held, that the act is valid, as its enactment is in substantial compliance with Const. art. 3, § 6, requiring that so much of a law as is "revived, amended, extended or con- ferred shall be re-enacted and published at length."-Purvis v. Ross, (Pa. Sup.) 27 A. 882- Titles of acts-Plurality of subjects.
3. Under Const. art. 3, § 3, providing that no act shall be passed containing more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title, the provision of Act May 24, 1893, entitled "An act to abolish the commissioners of public buildings and to place all public build- ings heretofore under the control of such com- missioners under the control of the depart- ment of public works in cities of the first class," providing for the repeal of Act Aug. 5. 1870, cannot stand. McCollum, Mitchell, and Thomp- son, JJ., dissenting. Perkins v. City of Phil- adelphia, (Pa. Sup.) 27 A. 356. Repeal.
4. Act approved April 2, 1891, entitled "An act for the formation and government of boroughs," does not repeal by implication act approved April 5, 1878, entitled "An act for the formation of borough governments," and the supplements thereto, since the act of 1878 is evidently designed for a more permanent community, of larger area, and larger perma- nent population, while the act of 1891 applies, by its very terms, to a population of an itiner- ant and fluctuating character.-State v. Clarke, (N. J. Sup.) 27 A. 924.
Corporate stock, see "Corporations," 10, 11.
See "Waters and Water Courses."
See "Highways;" "Municipal Corporations."
When allowed. 1. Where a corporation assigns book ac- counts to its president to indemnify him as in- dorser of its notes, a receiver of the corpora- tion, thereafter appointed, on paying a note so indorsed, is not entitled to subrogation to the benefit of the indemnity given to the president, and therefore the receiver will not be compelled to pay such note in preference to other claims. -Whitehead v. Hamilton Rubber Co., (N. J. Ch.) 27 A. 897.
2. A purchaser of property of a firm, one of the members of which had died, agreed to assume the firm debts. The wife of the de- ceased member held a note against the firm, which had apparently been paid; but she claimed that it had not, and insisted on its payment, in addition to what would otherwise have been her share of the purchase money, which was finally done. After the negotia- tions were closed, it was discovered that the deceased partner, instead of applying money drawn out of the firm to the payment of the note, as the books showed, had appropriated it to his own use. Held, that he must be regard- ed as a debtor to the firm, to the amount so misappropriated by him, and the purchaser, having succeeded to all the rights of the firm, could enforce the claim against his estate. In re Miller's Estate, (Pa. Sup.) 27 A. 698; Appeal of Miller, Id.
To rights of mortgagee.
3. Where a mortgage is given on land owned in common by husband and wife to se- cure a debt of the husband, a purchaser of the husband's interest in the land, who pays off the mortgage debt, is not entitled to be subro- gated to the mortgagee's rights as against the wife's interest in the land, since she was only surety for her husband, and was as effectually released by the payment of the debt by the pur- chaser as if her husband, the principal debtor, had paid it.-Zeller v. Henry, (Pa. Sup.) 27 A. 559.
To rights of judgment creditors.
4. A note on which judgment was rendered against A. & L. was executed by them, while partners, to secure a joint debt. After the judgment they dissolved partnership; A. paying off an individual obligation of L., who, in con- sideration, agreed to pay such judgment. There-
after, property of A. was levied upon, and the amount of the judgment collected therefrom. Held, that A. was entitled to be subrogated to the rights of the judgment creditor against L.- Gilfillan v. Dewoody, (Pa. Sup.) 27 A. 782.
5. Act April 22, 1856, § 9, provides that when the land of several persons is subject to the lien of a judgment in which one should have subrogation against another, one having such right may obtain a rule on the plaintiff, on pay- ment of the judgment, to assign it for such uses as the court may direct; and the court may direct to what uses it shall be assigned, and, when assigned, direct all executions there- upon, so as to subserve the rights and equities of all parties whose land is subject thereto. Appellees, grantees of oil leases from appel- lant, obtained an assignment of certain prior judgments against appellant under the above act. Held, that the court properly awarded them a writ of vend. ex. on said land, subject to their own leaseholds.-Porter v. Vanderlin, (Pa. Sup.) 27 A. 872.
Supplementary Proceedings. See "Execution," 10.
SURFACE WATER.
Change of drain by borough.
1. In an action against a borough for changing a drain, thereby causing the flow of surface water on plaintiff's land to be in- creased, defendant could show that less surface water flowed through the ditch after than be- fore the change made by the borough.-Fred- erick v. Borough of Lansdale, (Pa. Sup.) 27 A. 563.
Liability of railroad company.
2. In an action against a railroad company for damages to plaintiff's property from an overflow of surface water from ditches and drains on defendant's road, there being evi- dence that they were in good condition; that a storm during the night caused a cave-in, filling one of them up; and that it was the heaviest fall of rain ever known by persons who had lived in the vicinity for many years, the rain all falling within five hours,-the question of whether the damage was caused by the act of God was properly left to the jury.-Sentman v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., (Md.) 27 A. 1074.
« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó » |