King, defendant, produced a calculation is also mentiond in our 10th and 11th in writing, which had been prepared by finding of facts. him without the knowledge of the said 21. The agreement of May 26, 1916 George T. Waltermyer. The calculation (referred to in our next preceding findso produced showed that the plaintiff, ing) was prepared by Mr. Altland at the Goerge T. Waltermyer, was credited instance of the defendant, Harry M. with only $1,500.00 of the whole amount King. of the insurance due on the destroyed The sum of $3,426.63 was taken by planing mill. The plaintiff, George T. Mr. Altland from the very same calcuWaltermyer, then and there expressed lation which the defendant, Harry M, his dissatisfaction and was told by King, King, had exhibited to the plaintiff at th defendant, that he was treating him, the office of Robert King (see our 19th Waltermyer, "very fairly". finding of fact). The calculation had After further conversation regarding been furnished to Mr. Altland by Harry in company the said calculation indulged in by the M. King, the defendant, said three persons present, Waltermyer with Robert King a few days before left, still refusing to agree with the said May 26, 1916. Robert and Harry M. King as to the correctness of the said calculation. 22. According to the undenied testimony of Waltermyer, the defendant, King, had in his possession the contract 20. On May 25th 1916, Harry M. referred to in our 1st and 2d findings of King, the defendant, telephoned to the fact, and although the contract appears plaintiff, George T. Waltermyer, asking to have been executed in duplicate, the him, Waltermyer, to come to the office said King never gave to Waltermyer his of Kerwin W. Altland, Esq., saying that duplicate until after the agreement mena new agreement was ready for execu- tioned in our 20th and 21st findings of tion. The plaintiff, Waltermyer, did not fact had been executed, at which time go to the said Attorney Altland's office he, Waltermyer received a copy of both in response to the said telephone request, the agreement executed in 1915 and the and on the following day, May 26th, agreement executed in 1916. defendant King called him by telephone 23. There is nothing in evidence three different times urging that he come which indicates that Waltermyer, the to the said attorney's office. In response plaintiff, had ever been informed of his to those telephone calls, Waltermyer, the legal rights to the $2,502.00 fire insurplaintiff, called at Mr. Altland's office and ance, which had been paid by the insurfound the attorney, Mr. Altland, and ance companies to the defendant, Harry Mr. Harry King there awaiting his ar- M. King, or of his legal claim to the rival. A typewritten agreement, which $85.00 paid to King for the old iron had been prepared by Mr. Altland ac- which had been gathered from the ruins cording to calculations submitted to him of the planing mill, and sold to the junk by Harry M. King, the defendant, was dealer, as recited in our 17th and 18th then and there shown to Waltermyer, findings of fact, and we here find as a the plaintiff, and during conversation, fact that the said Harry M. King blandwhich appears to have been indulged in ly, adroitly and assiduously deceived the by King, the defendant, Altland, the at- said Waltermyer in that respect, and so torney, and Waltermyer, the plaintiff, took undue and unconscionable advantthe said Waltermyer refused to sign and age of the said Waltermyer, by inducing execute the said agreement, complaining him to execute the agreement of May "that he was not being fairly treated", 26th, 1916, described in our 9th finding After further discussion, in which it is of fact, intending thereby to obtain for apparent the said Waltermyer received himself part of the insurance money the assurance of the said King that he which should have been credited to Walwas dealing fairly with him, the plain- termyer, and to prolong the payment of tiff, Waltermyer, and the defendant, interest to him, King, from the said King, signed the agreement, and the sig- Waltermyer. natures were witnessed by "K. W. Alt- 24. From the whole evidence, we deland". This agreement is mentioned and duce as a fact: that at the time the agreedescribd in our 9th finding of fact, and 'ment of May 26th, 1916, mentioned in our 9th finding of fact, was executed, FINDINGS OF LAW Waltermyer, the plaintiff, owed King, I. Under the terms of the agreement, the defendant, the consideration stipu- referred to and described in our 1st, 2d, lated in the agreement of May 16, 1915, 3rd, 4th and 5th findings, it was the mentioned in our 1st, 2d, 3rd and 4th duty of Harry M. King, the defendant, fiindings. $4.834.29. The interest there-after he had received the insurance on at 6% would be $225.59. Total mony, to have "then and at that time" $5,059.88. "execute and deliver a deed to the said He had paid the stipulated $50 per George T. Waltermyer", unless the said month, a period of eight months, amount-George T. Waltermyer refused to coming to $400.00. As we find in our 17th ply with his part of the agreement in finding of fact, the defendant, King, re-that respect. tained out of the amount which had II. "The vendor, especially as to real been received from sale of old iron the estate, is regarded as a trustee for the sum of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) and, vendee, and hence any insurance he may as we find in our 8th finding of fact, hold on the property sold will be treated King, defendant, collected insurance as being held by him for the benefit of amounting to $2,502.00. the vendee and he will be required to ap If these amounts would have been de-ply the proceeds on the purchase price, ducted from the original consideration, or otherwise give the vendee the benefit a balance due thereon at the time of the thereof." fire which dstroyed the planing mill, the plaintiff would have owed the defendant on the said contract of August 26th, 1915, mentioned in our 1st, 2d, 3rd, 4th and 5th findings of fact, the sum of $2,132.89. This is the rule as stated in L. R. A. 1918, D, page 638, which, as the citations in that rule show, has been followed by the Pennsylvania Appellate Courts. III. The agreement of May 26th 1916, described in our 9th finding of 25. As we have found, in our 3rd fact, was executed by George T. Walfinding of fact, the agreement referred termyer, the plaintiff, under a deception to stipulated that after the said principal intentionally practiced by the defendant, sum of $4,834.29 will have been reduced Harry M. King, who thus gained a finanby such payment to $2,500.00, "then at cial profit to which he was not legally that time the said Harry M. King (de- or equitably entitled. fendant), will execute and deliver a deed IV. The defendant, Harry M. King, to the said George T. Waltermyer should be required to account to the said (plaintiff)." plaintiff, George T. Waltermyer, for the 26. Harry M. King, the defendant, twenty-five dollars retained by him from disregarded the provisions of the con- the money received for old iron sold, tract mentioned and described in our 1st, as recited in our 17th finding of facts, 2d, 3rd, 4th and 5th findings of fact, did and for the $2,502.00 received by him not execute and deliver the deed stipu- from the fire insurance companies for lated for (as described in our 3rd and the loss by fire of the planing mill. 25th findings of fact), but took advantage of the ignorance of Waltermyer by persuading him to sign and execute the agreement on May 26th, 1916, mentioned and described in our 9th finding of fact. 27. The undisputed evidence shows that Waltermyer had, up to the time of the loss by fire and the collection of the insurance money collected therefore, complied with all the requirements of VI. The agreement entered into by the contract of August 16, 1915; and the plaintiff and defendant, May 26th, there was no evidence that would indi- 1916, should be annulled, and the moncate that he was not able and willing to eys paid thereunder by the plaintiff to further comply with its stipulations if a the defendant should be applied and deed would have been executed and de- credited as if made under livered by King, the defendant. ment of August 16th, 1915. V. The defendant, Harry M. King, should be required to render a true account to the said plaintiff, George T. Waltermyer, for all money received from or on account of the plaintiff, George T. Waltermyer, pertaining to the contract made between them August 16th, 1915, and the agreement entered into May 26th, 1916. the agree VII. A decree should be made that he was ignorant of the equitable against the defendant, Harry M. King, right which the plaintiff had to the inthat he shall prepare and execute a deed surance money, but he endeavors to exto the plaintiff, George T. Waltermyer, cuse his suggestion that a new agreeaccording to the stipulations of the ment be entered into by the expression agreement of August 16th, 1915, and that he "wanted to make it easier for tender it to the said plaintiff, George T. George (meaning the plaintiff) by reducWaltermyer, and upon his, the said ing his payments". That altruistic sentiplaintiff's, complying with his part of ment on the part of the defendant is not said agreement, deliver the said deed to sustained by any of the evidence. On said plaintiff. the contrary, the only reasonable inference which can be drawn from his dealings with the plaintiff after the fire occurrd, is that he wanted to prolong the contributions from the plaintiff as required by the agreement of May 26th, 1916. Discussion of the Facts and the Law Applicable Thereto. A study of the evidence, as given orally at the trial and in the transcribed notes of the stenographer, reveals the cupidity of the defendant in his dealings with the plaintiff in the transactions now in question. The evidence clearly shows that the plaintiff had been faithfully complying with payments of money to every requirement of his contract made on August 16th, 1915, and there was no evi dence which would indicate that he As we have before observed, and as we find as a fact, the only effect of his agreement is to enhance the financial interests of the defendant by inflicting a hardship and an injustice on the plaintiff. "When a person correctly apprehends his own legal rights, interests, and relations, a simple mistake as to the legal effect of a transaction into which he en would not have complied faithfully with tered, in the absence of other determinthe same contract when the principal ing interests, is not ground for relief"; sum to be paid had been reduced to but "equitable relief ...... will be $2,500.00. The misfortune which caus-granted when ignorance or misapprehened the destruction of the property which sion of a party concerning the legal efhe was confidently expecting to acquire fect of a transaction in which he engagtitle to when his efforts would have re-ed, or concerning his own legal rights duced the purchase price to $2,500.00, which are to be affected, is induced, prodid not diminish his energy to pay for cured, aided or accompanled by any inand acquire the property, but it did give equitable conduct of the other party, it the defendant an opportunity to obtain inclines in favor of the one who is mismoney which he had not lost, and pro-taken.” long the contributions of the plaintiff "A court of equity will not permit by requiring him to pay interest on more one party to take advantage and enjoy money than his contract required him to the benefit of an ignorance or mistake of pay to the defendant, and more than the law by the other, which he knew and did defendant could legally have exacted if not correct"; 2 Pomeroy, 1174, sec. 847, the plaintiff would have known his legal 818, and 849. rights to the insurance money paid. "If the evidence shows that in addition The evidence is convincing that the there would be great hardship in enforcplaintiff did not know his right to haveling the contract, made in ignorance of this money applied to his consideration the law, equity may afford relief; Norin the contract, until after he had been ris v. Crowe, 206 Pa. 483. advised so, when he went to the trust The facts of the present case undoubtofficer of the York Trust Company to edly place it in the class of cases inget a loan which would enable him to get cluded in the principle above quoted. the title to the property by paying the The evidence clearly shows the fact claim which King, the defendant, had that the transaction complained of in the fastened on him by the agreement of plaintiff's bill was inequitable in its conMay 26th, 1916. sequences to the plaintiff, and greatly King, the defendant does not contend 'beneficial to the defendant, who, taking advantake of his ignorance, urged and August 2, 1920, Ross, J.-The only persuaded the plaintiff to abandon the reasons advanced by the defendants to rights which the contract of 1915 secur- support the motion for a new trial are ed to him, and at the same time bind the general allegations filed just after himself by the contract of 1916, for the the verdist had been rendered: benefit of the defendant. "I. The verdict is against the evi dence. "2. The verdict is against the weight evidence. of the "3. The verdict is against the law applicable to the case." And the additional reason filed at the time the motion for new trial was called for argument, April 12th, 1920: There can be no injustice done to defendant by allowing the plaintiff to obtain the legal and equitable benefits which the contract with the defendant entitled him to, by requiring the defendant to apply all the money paid by the insurance. companies for the loss of the planing mill, and thus enable the plaintiff to perform his part of that contract, when a "The plaintiffs contracting and suing proper deed will have been tendered to under an assumed name, has not comhim. plied with the law requiring their indiWe have answered the several re-vidual names to be filed in the office of quests made by the parties to this suit, the Prothonotary and of the Secretary and have filed them with the said sev- of the State." eral requests. Where the plaintiffs in an action are copartnership and have not complied with the Act of June 28, 1917, P. L. 645, requiring the filing of a certificate showing the real names of all persons owning or interested in the business, and the defendants went on tiffs, the court will not set aside a verdict An examination of the pleadings in this case shows no dispute except the terms of a verbal contract. That a contract was made between the parties at the time and for the work and material as alleged in the statement, was not specifically denied by the affidavit of defence; nor was there any attempt made to deny it by evidence at the trial. In the affidavit of defence, the averment is, "that by verbal contract made with the plaintiffs certain patterns were to be furnished by the plaintiffs to the defendants for the sum of $250.00." "That upon the furnishing of the pattrial on the merits of the case, after having terns, defendants paid to the plaintiffs admitted part of a contract with the plain- the sum of $176.51. That the amount for the plaintiffs on the technical ground due and owing from the defendants to that the plaintiffs had not complied with the plaintiffs is the difference between $250.00, the contract price, and $176.51, or $73.49." the law mentioned. Judgment can not be entered n. o. v. the record does not disclose any where points reserved or submitted, or exceptions "That defendants have repeatedly taken to the charge. This rule is not chang-tendered this amount to the plaintiffs, ed by the Act of 1905, P. L. 286. which the plaintiffs have refused to re Assumpsit by George E. Hoffman ceive." and Ralph F. Hoffman, trading and do- The replication duly filed by plaining business as Hoffman Brothers v. Felix S. Bentzel, William A. Schlosser and Samuel L. Young, trading and doing business as York Tool and Machine Works, No. 151 April Term, 1919, in the Court of Common Pleas of York County, Pa. Sur motion by defendants for new trial and for judgment n. o. v. Motion refused. Glessner for plaintiffs. tiffs denies the payment and tender averred by the affidavit of defence, and proceeds on their claim of five hundred and forty-two dollars and ninty cents ($542.90) with interest, as set forth in the statement of demand. The case was left for the jury to decide upon the evidence. The charge of the Court was not expected to by the defendants, and no points or specific request for instructions on any phase of the case were advanced. The weight or preponderance of the evidence was purely a question for the jury. any time before the election, to call before it electors whose names have been omitted from the registry list, and the assessor of the district, and after hearing the parties to dis pose of the subject in a summary way as to law and justice shall belong and if need be to order the assessor to correct the registry There was ample evidence produced, which, if believed by the jury, would clearly warrant the verdict as it was ren-list accordingly. dered. Under the provisions of that act, the elecThere has been no law cited which tors have the right to be assessed and have would support the third exception, and we know of none which was violated either by the submission of the facts to the jury or by the rendition of the verdict. The several reasons filed as a basis for a new trial are all dismissed: York Pattern Works v. Simon, 26 Y. L. R. 25: DeLuch v. Beard, 4 Berks, 150. their names placed on the registry list, at any time, on personal application to the assessor for that purpose, if duly qualified. If their assessment is thereupon neglected or refused, the court may at any time, before election, correct the registry list by ordering such names to be added thereto by the assessor. But where there has been no previment there is no breach of duty by him, or ous application to the assessor for assesserror in the registry list, calling for correc tion. An unsigned partly written and partly printed paper, with a blank designation of the party who was authorized to have a vo of a voter or for the correction of the registry The additional reason filed is without merit. The defendant went to trial on the merits of the case, after having ad-ter's name placed on the assessment books, mitted a contract with the plaintiffs, and is not sufficient authority for the assessment the technical reason which is interposed list by the court ordering the addition of the cannot now be used to avoid the pay-vcter's name to the list. ment of a contract part of which has The court ordered the 'correction of the been confessed in the pleadings. registery lists of a borough where the names assessors for registration had been omitted The motion for judgment is entirely of voters who had applied personally to the without foundation in law. "Judgment from the lists by errors. cannot be entered n. o. v. when the rec Lion ord does not disclose any points re- Petition of Bertha M. Miller and othserved or submitted, or exceptions taken ers, in the Court of Common Pleas of to the charge. The rule is not changed York County, Pa., praying that the asby the Act of 1905, P. L. 286." Steph-sessors of Red Borough, said ens V. Brown, 37 County, be ordered to add their names Lancaster 47; 33 Y. L.. R. 171; Hanick v. Leader, 243 Pa to the registry lists. Petition granted 372: Duffy v.. York Haven Water & as to certain names, and refused as to Power Co., 233 Pa. 107; Butler Boro. others. School Dist. v. Penn Township School Dist., 64 Pa. Sup. Ct. 208. In re Registry Lists of Red Lion Laucks for petitioners. Cochran, Williams & Kain for respondents. October 1, 1920, Wanner, P. J.—This is an application to the Court for the correction of the Registry Lists of the Second and Third Election Districts of the Borough of Red Lion by adding thereto the names of the petitioners who being women, were not assessed at the rgular house to house assessment in May, 1920, because women were not then entitled to vote, and the greater Registry Lists-Correction of lists by number of whom did not at any time order of court-Personal application heretofore make personal application to for registration-Insufficient applica- the Assessors of their Districts for astion for registration. sessment under the provisions of the Act of May 16th, 1895, P. L. 75. Sec75, authorizes the court of common pleas, at tion I of that Act authorizes the Court Section 1 of the Act of May 16, 1915, P. L. |