and for judgment n. o. v. for defendant, but there is nothing upon the record to that effect. Indeed, there was no exception noted to the charge of the Court. By consent of plaintiff's counsel, an exception was noted nunc pro tunc. We direct this statement to be made a part of the record so that the appellate court will not consider an appeal without these motions in this court as discourteous to the court below and that the defendant did not exhaust all his rights in the court below.

Staples, P. J., Forty-third Judicial District, specially presiding, July 3, 1915. On the 4th day of May, 1915, the jury sworn to try the issue between the above parties, rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the sum of $795.55. On the same day, the jury fee was paid by the plaintiff and the receipt of the sheriff given to the prothonotary.

On May 18, 1915, the counsel for the defendant filed a praecipe with the prothonotary to place the suit and case on the argument list for May 27, 1915. When the case was called for argument on the 27th of May, it appeared that there was no record of any exception to the charge of Court, etc., nor any record of a motion for a rule to show cause why new trial should not be granted, nor why judgment n. o. v. should not be entered for the defendant.

After some consultation between the court and counsel, respectively, for the plaintiff and defendant, it was agreed by counsel for plaintiff that an exception to the charge of the court and answers to points might be entered for the defendant nunc pro tunc, whereupon the court directed the same to be done. Then the counsel for the defendant asked for consideration of an oral motion for rule to show cause why a new trial should not be granted and judgment entered for defendant n. o. v. These were discharged by the court in an opinion written for the purpose of protecting the defendant from a charge of want of courtesy to the court in appealing the case without these motions. The prothonotary misinterpreted the proceedings and the opinion and took the position that he had no right to enter judgment without an order from the court to that effect. He was clearly wrong in his position, for there had been no rule passed

upon for either new trial or judgment n. o. v., and, under the law, he had the authority to enter judgment upon the verdict upon the payment of the jury fund.

"Judgment on a verdict need not be entered in open court but may be entered by the prothonotary in vacation on producing the receipt for the verdict fee." Beyerle vs. Hain, 61 Pa. 226.

"It was not necessasry that the judgment should be entered on the verdict in open court. It was properly entered by the prothonotary in vacation at the instance of the plaintiff's attorneys, on producing the receipt for the payment of the jury fee. It was in accordance with the common and universal practice throughout the state, and it is too late now to question its propriety, even if the prothonotary was not expressly authorized, as he is by the Act of Assembly, to sign judgments."

Ibid.

In our opinion it was not necessary that there should have been a praecipe by the attorney to the prothonotary. We, however, are not inclined to grant the request of plaintiff's attorney that the court direct the judgment to be entered as of the day the jury fee was paid, viz: May 4, 1915, for nothing has occurred to alter the status of the claim on the verdict and it could only serve one purpose, viz: to deprive the defendant of a supersedeas if he took an appeal to the Superior Court. The payment of the jury fund did not of itself enter a judgment against the defendant. It required a distinct act of entry by the prothonotary and that was not done by him. It was the duty of the plaintiff to see that judgment was entered and his neglect to see that the prothonotary did this cannot operate against the defendant's right of appeal with a supersedeas as would be the case if we entered the judgment as of May 4th. The only injury to the plaintiff, is the delay in recovering his money, if finally adjudged entitled to it. The defendant must give security which will protect the plaintiff's claim. This holding of the court is in line with Hughes vs. Miller, 192 Pa. 365.

And now, July 3, 1915, in accordance with the aforegoing opinion, judgment is directed to be entered for the plaintiff against the defendant for the amount of the verdict and costs, interest to be computed from May 4, 1915.

IN RE AFRICAN M. E. ZION CHURCH.

Church Property-Petition for Sale - Trustees of State Body Organization-Act of June 5, 1913, P. L. 435.

Where an individual church has been inactive or extinct by reason of there being no resident or active trustees representing it, and where the church building is out of repair, is a menace to the community and is being wasted and destroyed, the Court of Common Pleas on petition will appoint the trustees of the state body organization, representative of the denomination of which the church is a member, and authorize them to make public sale of the property and dispose of the proceeds in accordance with the discipline of the church which provides that a surplus of money from such a sale shall be at the disposal of the Quarterly Conference according to its best judgment for the use of the church society.

Act of June 5, 1913, P. L. 435, followed.

In re petition for the appointment of trustees for the disposition and sale of the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, of Milton, Pennsylvania. Common Pleas of Northumberland County. No. 193 September Term, 1914.

Arthur L. Swartz, for the Petitioner.
H. W. Chamberlin, for Respondents.

Cummings, J., July 1, 1915. On January 29, 1914, a petition was presented to the said Court, setting forth that on the 22nd day of January, 1851, Solomon S. Gilbert and Hannah Gilbert, his wife, granted and conveyed unto Solomon White, Hannah Young and William Smith, trustees of the "African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church" and their successors in office forever, a lot of ground situate in the Borough of Milton, County of Northumberland and State of Pennsylvania, being bounded and described as follows:

All that certain piece of ground whereon the "Methodist Episcopal Zion African Church" now stands, situate in Upper Milton and bounded on the North by Broadway, on the East and South by lot of Archibald Rahwn (now Susan Hunsicker's heirs), and on the west by lot of James P. Sanderson (now Nancy Kremer's heirs), containing twenty-six feet in front and running the same number of feet to the depth of thirty-two feet.

That the church building is a frame structure out of repair and is a menace and dangerous to the surrounding residences on account of probable fire, and that the said church property is liable to be wasted or destroyed.

That the individual church has become inactive by the reason that there is no resident or active Trustee representing it; and that there is only one regular member and four congregational members, one of whom lives in Philadelphia, Penna., another who is unable to attend services or contribute to the support of the church, and the other two living at a distance and not able to attend services but once at long intervals, and that the church is not only idle but an expense to the ministry to supervise it.

At the Philadelphia and Baltimore Annual Conference of the "African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church' in its 87th Session, held at York, Pa., May 20-24, 1914, the Presiding Elder, Dr. J. Harvey Anderson, of Harrisburg, Pa., Rev. C. E. Johnson, S. Q. Swann, Calvin W. Anderson, of Williamsport, Pa., and W. H. Marshall, of Harrisburg, Pa., were appointed Trustees of the "African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church" of Milton, Penna., and authorized to make sale and dispose of the said church property or real estate.

That J. Harvey Anderson is the Presiding Elder of the Conference of the Milton Circuit of the Harrisburg District of the Philadelphia and Baltimore Conference of the "African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church" and is a member of the state body or organization representative of the denomination of which the said church located in Milton, was and is connected.

The petitioner prayed the Court to appoint J. Harvey Anderson, C. E. Johnson, S. Q. Swann, Calvin W. Anderson and W. H. Marshall, as Trustees of the said "African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church," to hold and to dispose of the title in fee simple of the said church property or real estate, mentioned and described heretofore, and that a rule be granted to show cause why the prayer of the petitioner should not be granted.

Upon the presentation of the said petition the Court made the following order: And now, June 29th, A. D. 1914, the within and foregoing petition presented and read in open court, and upon due consideration it is ordered and decreed that a rule be granted to show cause as within prayed for, and that a copy of the petition and rule be published four successive weeks, once a week, in the Northumberland Legal Journal and one newspaper of

Northumberland County, Pennsylvania, where said church is located of general circulation, said rule returnable at nine o'clock A. M., Monday, August 3rd, A. D. one thousand and nine hundred and fourteen, (1914).

Mary Gant, Amanda Smith, Bessie May Smith and Margaret E. Smith, filed an answer alleging that they were members of the "African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church" of Milton, Pennsylvania.

Denying that the individual church has become inactive, is a menace and dangerous to the surrounding residences, or that the said church property is liable to be wasted and destroyed, and aver that within two years last past substantial repairs and improvements have been made to said church building by members of the said church.

Denying that the individual church has become inactive by reason of there being no resident or active trustees representing it, or for the reason of having only one regular member and four congregation members and averring that there are regular members of said church living in full connection as follows: Mrs. Mary Gant, Milton, Pa.; Mrs. Amanda Smith, Lewisburg, Pa.; Mrs. Ada Carter, Lewisburg, Pa.; Geo. Price, Lewisburg, Pa.; Mrs. Lottie Hayes, Oil City, Pa.; Mrs. Ellen Watts, Washington, D. C., and probationers as follows: Bessie May Smith, Lewisburg, Pa.; Margaret E. Smith, Lewisburg, Pa.; Mrs. Kathrine Smith, Lewisburg, Pa.; Fannie Gant, Milton, Pa.

Alleging that on September 25, 1911, Mrs. Mary Gant, Mrs. Ellen Watts, Mrs. Lottie Hayes, Frank Hayes and Allen Smith, were elected as a Board of Trustees by the said church; that Allen Smith has since died, but that the other trustees are all living at the present time and Mrs. Gant is a resident of the Borough of Milton, and that paragraph 421 of the Discipline of said Church provides: That in case of failure to elect trustees at the proper time a subsequent meeting may elect, and all the trustees shall hold their office until their successors are elected.

Denying that the church is idle and an expense to the ministry to supervise it and aver that whenever called upon so to do the members of said congregation have paid the presiding elder's fees as well as all other charges.