was owned by one Samuel E. Rogers. McCreary being about to erect a building on his portion of said lot, he and Rogers entered into a party-wall contract, whereby it was agreed that they should unite in building a party wall on the line dividing the said premises, one-half of the wall to stand upon the property of each, and one-half of the costs of construction to be paid by each. The wall was erected and the costs paid according to contract, and McCreary, at the same time, erected a four-story brick building on his portion of the lot, using the said party wall as the eastern wall of his building. No building was erected on the east two-thirds of said lot 8. In November, 1890, McCreary leased to the R. J. Gunning Company the east or outside surface of said party wall, to be used for advertising purposes, and immediately thereafter, S. G. Higgins, the then owner of the said east two-thirds of said lot 8, notified the agent of the R. J. Gunning Company that he was the owner of the east half of said wall, and, on Mr. McCreary's attention being called to the matter, he paid back the money which he had received as rent, and the lease was surrendered to him. Thereupon, the R. J. Gunning Company entered into a lease with Higgins for the east half of said party wall for the term of two years. On May 22, 1893, said company entered into a new lease for said wall with the then owner of said east two-thirds of lot 8 for two years, for advertising purposes, and on October 17, 1894, the lease was renewed for another year. In 1890, in pursuance of the lease with Higgins, the R. J. Gunning Company caused to be painted upon the east surface of said party wall a Durham tobacco sign, 1082 feet long and 50 feet high, advertising Blackwell's Durham tobacco. The lettering on the sign was, "Smoke Blackwell's Genuine Durham Tobacco." Besides, there was a picture of a large Durham bull, occupying a space of 18 feet by 35 feet. This sign remained on the east surface of the party wall until July, 1893, or a month after Charles Shiverick & Company entered the building as tenants, when the R. J. Gunning Company brightened up the signs with a fresh coat of paint. Charles Shiverick & Company at the time protested against the revival of the sign, and asserted the right to put its sign on the building, and requested the R. J. Gunning Company to paint the same, which the latter declined to do. In October of the same year, Charles Shiverick & Company obliterated said Durham tobacco sign, and painted its own sign upon said wall. In March, 1894, the R. J. Gunning Company effaced this last sign, and replaced upon the wall the Durham tobacco sign, which last sign was painted out by Charles Shiverick & Company, and its own sign was again placed upon the wall. The following August, the R. J. Gunning Company again replaced the Durham tobacco sign on the wall, and during the night following it was painted out by Charles Shiverick & Company. Suit was then brought by the R. J. Gunning Company to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by reason of the painting out of said sign by Charles Shiverick & Company, and the plaintiff secured a verdict. Upon an appeal, the judgment was sustained. The Court (Norval, J.), said: "The wall in question was built by two adjoining lot owners under a written contract, so that one-half of the wall, divided longitudinally, rested on the one's lot and the other half on the other's lot. Each party to the agreement paid one-half of the cost of constructing the wall, and each was the owner in severalty of the portion thereof that stood upon his land, subject to the easement or right in the other to have it support the building which he might erect and attach to or connect with the wall. The fact that the agreement under which the wall was erected speaks 'of the joint ownership of said wall by said parties in equal proportions' does not take the case out of the rule governing party walls. A consideration of the entire contract in connection with the practical interpretation placed thereon by the parties thereto discloses that the wall was nevertheless a party wall, not owned either jointly or as tenants in common by the proprietors of the soil, but each possessed the portion of the wall which stood on his lot, subject to the cross easement of support in favor of the owner of the other lot and part of the wall. Sullivan vs. Graffort, 35 Iowa, 531; Dauenhauer vs. Devine, 51 Tex., 480; Burton vs. Moffit, 3 Or., 29; Bloch vs. Isham, 28 Ind., 37; Sherred vs. Cisco, 4 Sandf., 480. 'Land covered by a party wall remains the several property of the owner of each half, but the title of each owner is qualified by the easement to which the other is entitled of supporting his building by means of the half of the wall belonging to his neighbor. The only proper easement attached to a party wall is the easement of support.' It does not include the right to go upon the land of the other. The easement of support is all that either can convey. Ingals vs. Plamondon, 75 Ill., 118; Gibson vs. Holden, 115 Ill., 199; 3 N. E., 282. In Hoffman vs. Kuhn, 57 Miss., 746, Chalmer, J., said: "The owners of adjoining buildings connected by a party wall resting partly upon the soil of each are neither joint owners nor tenants in common of the wall. Each is possessed in severalty of his own soil up to the dividing line, and of that portion of the wall which rests upon it; but the soil of each, with the wall belonging to him, is burdened with an easement or servitude in favor of the other, to the end that it may afford a support to the wall and building of each other. Each, therefore, is bound to permit his portion of the wall to stand, and to do no act to impair or endanger the strength of his neighbor's portion, so long as the object for which it was erected, to wit, the common support of the two buildings, can be subserved; and each will consequently be liable to the other for any damage sustained by a disregard of this obligation. But the obligation ceases with the purpose for which it was assumed, namely, the support of the houses of which the wall forms a part.' In Andrae vs. Haseltine, 58 Wis., 395, 17 N. W., 18, Lyon, J., in speaking of party walls, observed: 'It seems to be the settled law that the owners of a party wall standing in part upon the lot of each are not tenants in common of the wall, but that each owns in severalty so much thereof as stands upon his lot, subject to easement of the other owner for its support, and the equal use thereof as an exterior wall of his building. Such being the tenure by which the wall is held and owned, it seems logically to follow that either owner may, at least upon his own land, do anything with the wall, or make any use of it, which does not interfere with or impair the enjoyment of such easement by the other owner. In Lappan vs. Glunz, 104 N. W. Rep., 26 (Mich.), a party-wall agreement was made between two adjoining lot holders, which set forth that "said wall, when constructed and as it progresses in construction without expense to said second party, his heirs or representatives, shall be the common property of both of said parties in equal proportions, and that said second party, his heirs and representatives, shall have full and unquestioned right to build thereto, and use the same according to the custom of partition walls." In pursuance thereof, one of them built upon his ground a double brick building, three stories in height. The other party, who did not build, leased the east face of the party wall, which was upon his land, to Fleishman & Company, and others, for advertising purposes. Thereupon the plaintiff filed his bill, praying for an injunction to restrain the defendant from painting or causing to be painted any sign, color, advertising, and so forth, on the east wall, and she alleged that the same greatly depreciated the rental value of her store and flats, and thereby damaged her property. It was held that the defendant had a right to use the east face of the wall for proper advertising purposes, and the decree of the Court below was, therefore, affirmed. A party wall is solely for the purpose of support, and outside of this the respective parties may use their land uninterfered with by the adjoining owner. Therefore, the surface of the party wall enclosed within the houses of which it forms part may be used by the respective parties as they see fit, for that portion is upon their land, and that use does not impair the purposes for which the wall was erected. If the wall is part of a building, can not the owner paint or paper it, or ornament it, according to his own pleasure? Ought there to be any diminution of right in the owner of the land to use the face of the wall which rests on his property because he has not erected a building upon it, or because he has not seen fit to build his building to its utmost height? I am of the opinion that his right to do this is thereby unimpaired, and that, for the reasons above given, the preliminary injunction granted in this case ought to be dissolved, and the bill dismissed at the costs of the plaintiff. Preliminary injunction dissolved and hill dismissed. NEW SCHILLER BUILDING AND LOAN ASSO'N vs. tary. Where for several years the secretary of a building and loan association, with the acquiescence of the board of directors, had settled the accounts of borrowing stockholders, received most of the payments, and was to all intents and purposes the manager of its business, a cash payment to the secretary by a borrower, in settlement of his mortgage, is a valid payment to the association and binding upon it. A payment in bank stock, received by the secretary in settlement of a loan from the association, although prima facie illegal, becomes binding upon the association when used for its benefit, and cannot afterward be repudiated by it on the ground that the act of the secretary was ultra vires. Rule to open judgment. In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County. No. 999 March Term, 1911. P. W. Stokes, for Plaintiff. H. C. Reynolds and F. Donnelly, for Defendants. Edwards, P. J., May 11, 1913-Judgment was originally entered in this case upon a bond, accompanying a mortgage, and an affidavit of default was filed in June, 1911, claiming $4,064 as the amount due on the bond and mortgage. The defendant came into court and obtained a rule to show cause why the judgment should not be opened, alleging payment of the mortgage in full. After the case was at issue the parties agreed in writing to submit the case to the court for trial without a jury. We make the following specific findings: FACTS. 1. The plaintiff is a building and loan association incorporated under the laws of Pennsylvania. In August, 1905, the defendants became the owners of fifteen shares of the stock of the association; and, in the same month secured a loan of $3,000 from the association, giving a mortgage on certain property in Scranton as security, and assigning to the association the fifteen shares of stock. By the terms of the bond and mortgage the monthly payments to be made by defendants were fifteen dollars dues on stock and fifteen dollars interest. 2. The fifteen shares of stock owned by the defendants were in the association's 23d series, which had been started a few months before the loan was made; so that |