ers will not be permitted to withdraw their signatures.
(Q. S.) In re Election of John L. Grim, 303.
A vacancy occurring in the office of school con-
troller in a city of the third class, is to be filled by the
Board of Controllers until the next municipal election,
when the voters of the ward are to elect a controller
to serve until the expiration of the term in which the
vacancy occurred. Commonwealth v. Evans, 8.
In case of an election for Common Councils, where
no proclamation has been made by the sheriff, the
Judges will merely compute the votes, and certify the
number received by the highest candidate, but will
not issue a certificate of election which might be con-
strued as deciding that there was a vacancy to be
filled. (C. P.) In re F. F. Brightly, 208. In re
Dambly, 209.
Cumulative voting. See CONSTITUTIONAL Law.
Election of church vestry. See CHURCH. Neilson's
Appeal, 414.
EMINENT DOMAIN. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
EQUITABLE EJECTMENT. See EJECtment.
EQUITABLE TITLE. Lien of judgment on.
See JUDGMENT. Hutchison v. Kerr, 39.
EQUITY. The rule that equity will not relieve
against an executed contract does not apply in case
of fraud or mistake. (C. P.) Brady v. Standard
Loan Association, 419.
A bill in equity will lie against a trustee of realty
limited to the use of his wife for life, and after her
death to the use of her surviving children, who has
continued to hold and enjoy the profits of the realty
after his wife's death, on the supposition that he was
entitled thereto as tenant by the curtesy. (C. P.)
Fidelity Co. v. Norris, 225.
A mistaken and honest payment by the trustee of
an infant's share to one whom the trustee believed to
be the owner thereof, is no defence to a claim by the
infant. Ib.
Upon a bill in equity filed by assignees for creditors,
it is the duty of a court of equity to pursue au insol-
vent's interest in a trust fund, restrain its improper
conversion, control its investment, and generally to
prevent any maladministration of the trust. Martha
Smith's Appeal, 285.
A court of equity will not retain property of a for-
eigu insolvent for the payment of creditors in this
State; nor will the fact that a statute of limitation of
the State of insolvent's domicile ruus after three years,
and has been pleaded in bar of the claim of a creditor
of this State, raise any equity in such creditor to avoid
the rule. Ib.
Where as to part of the property in dispute, an
ejectment would be an adequate remedy, yet if the
title to the balance could only be settled by bill in
equity, the plaintiff will not be compelled to divide
his claim, and the entire subject-matter will be adjudi-
cated in equity. Socher's Appeal, 381.
Jurisdiction in equity to settle a disputed election
for vestrymen. Neilson's Appeal, 414.
Jurisdiction in matters of account. (C. P.) Thistle
v. Lippincott, 139.
A bill in equity is the proper remedy for enforcing
payment of unpaid subscriptions to the capital stock
of a corporation organized under the Act of April 29,
1874. Bunn's Appeal, 193.
A post-nuptial settlement between husband and
wife may, if unobjectionable, be enforced by the
machinery of a court of equity. Burkholder's Appeal,
234.
What must appear upon the face of a bill, where
discovery is sought in aid of a suit at law. (C. P.)
Thistle v. Lippincott, 139.
See EXECUTION.
Discovery in aid of an execution.
Commonwealth v. Baker, 75.
Injunction. Where there is an attempt on the
part of school directors to levy and collect a building
tax in one year for the purpose of using a portion so
collected to pay a deficit in the general fund for the
preceding year, a court of equity will enjoin the col-
lection of so much of the tax levied for building pur-
poses as is not needed therefor. Delano Land Co. v.
Conners, 155.
A principal cannot enjoin his creditor from proceed-
ing against the surety merely because he himself has
a good defence. (C. P.) Riegel v. Riegel, 303.
Ex parte injunctions will be granted only in cases
of emergency to preserve the status quo. (C. P.)
McCall v. Barrie, 419.
After bill filed and notice given, a defendant pro-
ceeds at his peril with the act complained of. Ib.
A preliminary injunction shall be taken to be dis-
solved unless continued on motion, with notice and
hearing within five days, but the injunction may be
dissolved within the five days.
An injunction will not be granted before hearing,
when it may do greater injury to the defendant by
granting it, than is done to plaintiff by refusing it. Ib.
Injunction when not granted to restrain openings in
party wall. Ib.
Injunction when granted to restrain building in
violation of covenant. Yeaton's Appeal, 401.
Practice. Amendment of bill to enjoin nuisance
by joinder of new parties complainant, when allowed.
(C. P.) Harrison v. St. Mark's Church, 387.
A demurrer to a bill on the ground of its being un-
certain and contradictory must allege the particular
sections in which the alleged faults occur. (C. P.)
Brady v. Building Association, 419.
The equity rule of the conclusiveness of a respon-
sive answer does not apply when the answer is made
on information. Socher's Appeal, 381.
Where a party desires to compel the production of
books and papers before an examiner, the proper
practice is for the examiner to make an interlocutory
report upon the application, upon which in a proper
case the Court will make an order for their production.
(C. P.) Munroe v. Building Association, 106.
Under what circumstances corporation books may
be opened before an examiner in equity. (C. P.)
Munroe v. Building Association, 107.
In a proper case the powers of an examiner may be
so enlarged as to enable him to pass upon questions
of the admission or exclusion of evidence. (C. P.)
Bridesburg Manuf. Co. v. Lehigh Valley Iron Co., 304.
Under what circumstances a reference will be set
aside in equity, and an examiner appointed to conduct
the case after the ordinary method. (C. P.) White
v. Davis, 59.
The appointment or dismissal of a master in parti-
tion is not of course, and must be made by an order
of court in accordance with the equity rules of the
Supreme Court. Under section 73 of these rules such
order can be made only upon application entered in
the equity docket with due notice to adverse parties
or their solicitors. Gibbons's Appeal, 204.
A sale of lands in partition by a master appointed
by order of Court granted without notice to adverse
parties is voidable, and will be set aside. Ib.
Costs of an examiner and master, in equity, should
not be imposed upon the successful defendant, who
has not invoked the services of the examiner and set up as a defence that the bonds were issued in a
master. Yerkes's Appeal, 510. See Costs.
ERRORS AND APPEALS. When the Court
below sustains exceptions to the report of a referee
appointed under the Act of June 16, 1836, but enters
no judgment and files no opinion, an agreement of
counsel submitted to the Supreme Court to waive all
technical defects as to the sufficiency of the pleadings,
in order that the judgment may be reviewed by the
Supreme Court, is not sufficient to establish a judg-
ment in the Court below which the Supreme Court
can affirm or reverse, and the writ of error was
quashed. McGlue v. Philadelphia, 399.
The refusal to grant a compulsory nonsuit is not
the subject of a writ of error. Easton v. Neff, 206.
No writ of error lies to the refusal to enter judgment
for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence unless the
plaintiff excepts to the refusal. Watson v. Supplee,
No writ of error lies to an order permitting a motion
for a new trial to be filed nunc pro tunc during the
term at which the verdict was entered. The limita-
tion of the time for filing a motion for a new trial
rests upon a rule of Court, to vary which is within
the discretion of the Court ordaining the rule. Lance
v. Bonnell, 3-5.
A question as to the amount of costs chargeable
against a fund, the proceeds of a sheriff's sale, which
has not been raised before the auditor or the Court
below, cannot be raised for the first time on appeal
to the Supreme Court. Patrick's Appeal, 332.
The Act of April 4, 1877, allowing an appeal from
decisions of the Courts in the opening of judgments
entered by virtue of a warrant of attorney or on judg-
ment notes does not extend to the case of judgments
revived by scire facias, though originally entered as
above. Appeal of the First National Bank of Muncy,
493.
In making up a bill of exceptions, all that part of
the charge which relates to the specific points excepted
to, is entitled to be entered on the bill of exceptions.
(C. P.) Yardley ". Cuthbertson, 29.
Under the Act of June 8, 1881, the recognizance in
error should be sufficient merely to secure payment of
all the costs that may be legally taxed against the
party who obtains the writ. Quick v. Miller, 1.
Certiorari lies to review the record of proceedings
taken by the Commonwealth to close the business of
an insurance company under the Act of April 4, 1873.
Mahoney Life Association v. Commonwealth, 370.
ESTOPPEL. Where A., holding the legal title,
takes a lease from B., the holder of the equitable title,
and then sells and conveys the land in fee simple to
C., he is estopped from denying the right of the pur-
chasers from B.'s assignee to recover possession, be-
cause the balance of purchase-money due from B.
was not tendered before bringing suit. Weaver v.
Craighead, 116.
Where improvements are made by the holder of an
equitable title, and a mechanic's lien is filed against
him as contractor, and against the holder of the legal
title as owner, and a scire facias is issued, duly served,
judgment obtained, and on execution the property is
sold to a bona fide purchaser, such sale divests the
title of the legal owner, who has thus permitted judg-
ment to be recovered against him. The judgment
confirms prior averments which are permitted to stand
unchallenged, and the claim becomes res adjudicata.
Weaver v. Lutz, 251.
In an action against a municipal corporation by a
bona fide holder of its bonds, the defendant cannot
manner which was a substantial evasion of the Act of
Assembly authorizing the issue. Kerr v. Corry, 277.
A judgment, although paid in full, may by contract
be kept alive to secure a new loan, and parol evidence
of such contract is admissible in an action between
the parties. While such a contract is void as to sub-
sequent lien creditors of the debtor, he himself is
estopped from denying it. Peirce v. Black, 295.
Where an insolvent debtor in fraud of his creditors
assigns his property to a third person, taking from him
judgment notes for the value thereof, and subsequently
assigns one of the judgment notes as collateral secur-
ity to a creditor, who has knowledge of the fraud, the
maker of such note cannot set up the fraud as a de-
fence in an action brought against him by the creditor
thereon. Winton v. Freeman, 324.
See RES ADJUDICATA.
EVIDENCE. A finding of lunacy by a jury of
inquiry, confirmed by the Court, and a subsequent
decree of restoration, is conclusive against the former
lunatic in an action brought by her against the parties
initiating the proceedings. (C. P.) Johnston v. Given,
326.
At law the testimony of one witness to establish an
oral contract, no matter how flatly contradicted, should
be submitted to the jury; and whether there was a
contract, and what were its terms, was for the jury to
determine. Weaver v. Craighead, 116.
An advertisement of the sale of property in a news-
paper and by handbills, unknown to the party sought
to be affected by it, does not amount to notice, nor is
it competent testimony as a make-weight in support
of the allegation of fraud. Ib.
Evidence of a custom is not admissible to relieve a
defendant from a liability upon a bond, clearly ex-
pressing the liability. Juniata Loan Association v.
Hetzel, 481.
Waiver of an express provision in a policy of fire
insurance cannot be proved by parol testimony, show-
ing that the general custom among insurance compa-
nies and brokers is otherwise than as stated in the
provision, when there is another clause in the policy
providing that there shall be no waiver, except by the
authority of the company, expressed in writing. (U.
S. C. C.) Peoria Sugar Refinery v. Ins. Co., 503.
In the absence of the original draft or plan employed
by the grantor, its place may be supplied by other
evidence from which the jury are to determine the
location of the disputed street or alley. Transue v.
Sell, 397.
The construction of written instruments is always
for the Court, except when they cannot be understood
without reference to extrinsic facts, and then the jury
are to judge of the whole together. Foster v. Berg,
215.
In an act on by a physician against a decedent's
estate, a printed diary with figures and symbols
marked down in the blanks, cannot be received in
evidence as a book of original entries. (O.C.) Ger-
man's Estate, 192.
In an action by a passenger against a sleeping-car
company to recover for loss of articles stolen during
sleep, evidence that another passenger in the same
car was robbed on the same night is admissible to show
want of proper care on the part of the defendant.
Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Gardner, 17.
Declarations by a judgment debtor to a stranger,
made after the entry of judgment, that he had no
title, are immaterial and inadmissible. Hutchison v.
Kerr, 39.
Declarations by the secretary of a corporation as to
the amount due on a mortgage held by it, are not ad-
missible in evidence in a suit on the mortgage, unless
it be shown that the secretary had authority to bind
the corporation by such admissions. Johnston v.
Elizabeth Loan Association, 247.
The relationship of an agent cannot be established
by his own declarations. Creighton v. Boudinot. 556.
Production of books and papers before an examiner
in equity, how compelled. See EQUITY. (C. P.) Mun-
roe v. Building Association, 106, 107.
What evidence not admissible in mitigation of dam-
ages in an action brought against a coal-mining com-
pany for polluting a running stream. See DAMAGES.
Sanderson v. Coal Co., 81.
Scope of evidence in action of libel.
Bruce v. Reed, 161.
See LIBEL.
Parol, when not admissible to vary writing. In an
action upon a life insurance policy, statements made
by the defendant's agents as to the meaning of the
policy on other occasions are inadmissible. Smith v.
Insurance Co., 129.
A clause in the prospectus of an insurance com-
pany offering thirty days' grace in the payment of
premiums is ineffectual to contradict the terms of the
policy. Ib.
Parol evidence is admissible to vary the effect of a
writing only when a chancellor upon bill filed would
reform the instrument. Ib.
While a deed absolute on its face may be shown
by parol to be a mortgage (if made prior to June 8,
1881) the evidence must be clear, explicit, and une-
quivocal, and such as would move a Chancellor to de-
cree a reconveyance. Nicolls v. McDonald, 181.
A judgment, although paid in full, may by contract
be kept alive to secure a new loan, and parol evi-
dence of such contract is admissible in an action be-
tween the parties. Peirce v. Black, 295.
In an action against a surety on a bond which is
also secured by the mortgage of the principal debtor,
parol evidence is admissible to prove a contract that
the bond should not be resorted to until the mortgage
security was exhausted, and that the latter had been
lost through the carelessness of the plaintiff. Juniata
Loan Association v. Hetzel, 431.
Where a writing is signed by the parties to a con-
tract, it is presumed to embody their final determina-
tion, absorbing all preliminary negotiations, and parol
testimony of one of the parties to change a written
contract, if denied by the other, must be corroborated
by another witness, or the equivalent of another, be-
fore a court of equity will attempt to reform it, or set it
aside. North and West Branch R. R. Co. v. Swank, 444.
Competency of witnesses. In an action against
an executor upon an instrument of writing alleged to
have been executed by the decedent (prior to the Act
of April 15, 1869), the execution of the paper cannot
be proved by proof of the handwriting of a deceased
subscribing witness thereto, who at the time of the
attestation was a party interested therein. Mackrell
v. Wolff, 249.
In such case the subscribing witness if living would
be incompetent to prove the execution of the instru-
ment. The action being against au executor, the Act
of 1869 has no application. Ib.
Upon a criminal trial evidence may be admitted of
any one of a system of crimes that are mutually de-
pendent, to show that the defendant belonged to an
organization banded together for the purpose of com-
mitting crime, but some connection must be shown
to exist between the offences. Swan v. Commonwealth,
67.
Where a witness is incompetent as to some matters,
and competent as to others, the objection must point
to the matters as to which he is incompetent. Zuver
v. Clark, 36.
A party defendant in a bill praying for a partner-
ship account may be called as a witness for complain-
ant, although one of the co-defendants is dead, and
the executors substituted of record at the time the
witness is called. Caldwell's Appeal, 145.
Such witness is within the letter of the Act of 1865,
and the fact that he was presumably a friendly witness
for complainant goes to his credit, and not to his com-
petency. Ib.
The Act of April 15, 1869, which abolished all ob-
jection to the competency of witnesses on the ground
of policy of the law, except in cases of actions by or
against executors and administrators, etc., was an en-
abling statute, and rendered no witness incompetent
who was competent at the time of its passage. Ib.
An attorney is a competent witness on behalf of his
client, even though interested in the result of the
litigation by a contract for a contingent fee. Perry v.
Dicken, 245.
EXAMINER'S FEES. See EQUITY. Yerkes's
Appeal, 510.
EXECUTION. The defendant must be warned
by scire facias before an execution can issue on a
judgment over five years old. (C. P.) Marx v. Gold-
smith, 173. Harmony Building Asso. v. Berger, 499.
The fact that during that period executions have
been issued is immaterial. (C. P.) Comstock v.
Kilchenstein, 388. Contra (C. P.) Todd v. Lowe, 550.
The interest of a defendant in a patent cannot be
taken in execution under a fi. fa. (C. P.) Har-
rington v. Cambridge, 456.
Where one wrongfully prevents the sheriff from
actually taking manual possession of a piece of per-
sonal property in his custody which the sheriff never-
theless includes in his return of goods levied upon
and proceeds to sell, and the party is present at the
sale and makes no objection, the levy and the title of
the purchaser from the sheriff are clearly good as
against him. Stuckert v. Keller, 479.
Such person having himself a judgment against the
owner of the property cannot by issuing execution
thereon against such property, and buying it in at the
sale acquire a title superior to that of the former pur-
chaser. Ib.
Where in an action of covenant sur ground-rent
deed judgment has been recovered against the original
covenantor, a terre-tenant may subsequently obtain
leave to enter security for stay of execution. Ellis v.
Cadwallader, 400, affirming C. P., 12.
Exemption, waiver of, effect of, as to claims of
other creditors when exemption is waived as to one.
(O. C.) Fitler's Estate, 62.
Where a defendant in an execution made a claim
for exemption before the return day of the writ under
which a levy was made, but owing to delay on the
part of the sheriff, no appraisement was made until
the morning of the day of sale, the defendant's right
of exemption was not thereby defeated. Coleman's
Appeal, 71.
In such a case, the defendaut is not relegated to a
suit against the sheriff, but may claim the $300 out of
the proceeds of the land sold. Ib.
Where property levied on is at first claimed by the
wife who afterwards files a disclaimer, the husband's
right to exemption is not thereby barred. (C. P.)
Allemong v. Passmore, 124.
Other Matters. Where an attachment execution
is laid after a levy by the sheriff, the practice is to
allow the sheriff to sell and rule the money into Court. are separate and distinct parcels sold, and one portion
(C. P.) Brooks v. Salin, 390.
Bill of discovery in aid of an execution filed under
the Act of June 16, 1836, must comply with all the
provisions of that Act, and show a failure of the
remedy at law. (C. P.) Commonwealth v. Baker, 75.
A plaintiff is entitled to cross-examine a claimant
who offers his own bond upon an interpleader. (C. P.)
Landell v. Hager, 173.
The proceeds arising from the sale upon execution
of property of an insolvent corporation not essential
to the exercise of its franchises, goes to the execution
creditor, and is not to be distributed among any of the
other creditors. Fairmount Coal and Iron Co.'s Ap-
peal, 214.
Whether any of the franchises of the corporation
could be sold on execution, and the proceeds applied
on that execution to the exclusion of other creditors
not decided. Ib.
A municipal lien under the Act of April 2, 1870 (the
Penn Avenue Act), is not divested by a judicial sale,
and is not payable out of the fund realized thereby.
Bryant's Appeal, 167.
If under the Act of March 29, 1832, a charge in lieu
of dower is made on land, and a son who on the death
of the widow would be entitled, under the Act, to a
share in the principal so charged, accepts in the par-
tition proceedings, the same land as part of his share
of his father's estate, such acceptance will merge his
right on the death of the widow, to a share of the
principal charged on said land in lieu of dower, and
on judgment being obtained against him, and the land
sold, the purchaser at sheriff's sale is not liable for
the principal charged on the land, in an action brought
against him by the administrator of the son. Steckel
v. Koons, 137.
Sheriff's sale of real estate, when set aside for mis-
description of property and inadequacy of price. (C.
P.) Trust Co. v. Herr, 390.
After acknowledgment of the sheriff's deed, the title
of the purchaser will not be affected by the fact that
the judgment was prematurely entered. (C. P.) Lea
v. Union Transfer Co., 512.
A sheriff's sale of land under a judgment obtained
by a defrauded creditor subsequent to the fraudulent
conveyance passes the debtor's title, subsequent to
prior liens, unaffected by the fraudulent conveyance.
The purchaser at such sale must, however, pursue
his legal remedy, impeach the conveyance, and show
a valid title as against the grantee; he cannot treat
such conveyance as a nullity. Zuver v. Clark, 36.
In ejectment by a purchaser at sheriff's sale, parol
evidence is admissible to show that the defendant's
signature to a waiver of inquisition upon a fi. fa. is a
forgery. Ib.
In procedings by a sheriff's vendee, to recover pos-
session under the Act of 1836, a third party claiming
title having made affidavit and entered into the pre-
scribed recognizance, is not bound to file a transcript
but only to appear and plead to proceedings insti-
tuted by the plaintiff. (C. P.) Wanger v. Graham,
thereof charged to the fund realized from each. Ib.
Where a mortgagee assigns part of the mortgage
debt, and the proceeds of the property bound thereby
at a sale under the mortgage are insufficient to pay
the claims of both the assignor and the assignee, the
fund will be divided between them pro rata. Patrick's
Appeal, 332.
All exceptions to the amount of costs paid out of
fund realized from a sheriff's sale, must be taken before
the Auditor, or in the Court below. The question
cannot be raised for the first time on appeal to the
Supreme Court. Ib.
Wages. Labor bestowed by a contractor, employ-
ing carpenters, millwrights, and blacksmiths, in
making repairs upon an old rolling mill, is not enti-
tled to the preference given by the Act of April 9,
1872, to wages in the distribution of the sheriff's sale
of the property. Llewellyn's Appeal, 69.
A claim for wages under the Act of April 9, 1872,
is not limited to wages earned before the levy, but
includes wages earned up to the day of sale. (C. P.)
Matsinger v. Covenant Publishing Co., 90.
A laborer claiming $200 wages out of the proceeds
of an execution under the Act of April 9, 1872, may
appropriate payments for wages made to him within
six months preceding the sale to wages due him prior
to the six months. Wagner's Appeal, 104.
At the time of a sheriff's sale of personalty, the
defendant in the execution was indebted to a laborer
for wages earned prior to the six months immediately
preceding the sale, in the sum of $355, and in the
further sum of $525, for wages earned during the six
months. The laborer had been paid during the six
months weekly sums for wages, aggregating $126.94.
The laborer claimed $200 from the fund: held, that in
the absence of a specific appropriation of the sums
so paid during the six months, the claimant was enti-
tled to apply them to the earliest indebtedness, in-
cluding wages due prior to the six months, and to
recover the full amount of $200, if so much remained
due on account of wages earned within the six months.
Ib.
Farmers are not employers, under the Act of April
9, 1872, and the supplement of June 13, 1883, within
the purview of the Acts, whose laborers are entitled
to priority for wages earned within six months, in the
distribution of proceeds of an execution against per-
sonalty. (C. P.) Jacobs v. Woods, 237.
The supplement of 1883 does not enlarge the class
of employers from whom wages may become due,
prescribed in the Act of 1872. Nor does said supple-
ment change the kinds of business in which the pre-
ferred wages may be earned. Ib. Contra (C. P.),
Thompson v. Wingert, 483.
The business of a drug store is within the Act. (C.
P.) Thompson v. Wingert, 483.
Notice of claim by employé, when sufficient. Ib.
Attachment execution. Where a pension draft
is placed in the hands of a bank for collection, and
the bank allows a cash credit, the pension is no longer
în transitu, and is the subject of an attachmeut. (C. P.)
McCalla v. Brennan, 513.
Where the fund produced by a sale of real estate is
insufficient to pay prior liens, the plaintiff in the writ
on which the land is sold shall receive out of the pro-poration which has become insolvent may be levied
ceeds the costs incurred in order to effect the sale only,
and not those incurred prior to its execution. Bryant's
Appeal, 167.
Where upon execution real estate is sold in parcels
for separate and distinct sums, the costs on the writ
are to be divided into as many equal parts as there
Unpaid subscriptions to the capital stock of a cor-
upon under writs of attachment execution, although
no assessment has been made by the board of di-
rectors. (U. S. C. C.) In re Glen Iron Works, 514.
The corporation having been declared bankrupt,
upon proceedings instituted subsequently to the ser-
vice upon stockholders of such writs of attachment
execution, and the unpaid capital having been
awarded to the assignee without prejudice to the
rights of the attaching creditors and with leave to
intervene held, upon the intervention of such cred-
itors claiming the amounts of their judgments, that
the same was liable to the lien of the attachments,
and should be awarded to the attaching creditors. Ib.
In case of an insolvent corporation, unpaid instal-
ments of subscription to capital stock cannot be held
under an attachment execution by a judgment creditor
of the corporation. Bunn's Appeal, 193.
An attachment will not lie against a warden of the
Eastern Penitentiary for moneys of a prisoner in his
official possession. (C. P.) Davies v. Gallagher,
Adjustment of rights of attaching creditors in Or-
phans' Court. (O. C.) Fitler's Estate, 62.
The attachment of a debt does not prevent judg-
ment in a proceeding on the debt attached by the
defendant against the garnishee. (C. P.) Ireland v.
Stockham, 126.
An attachment against a garnishee in his own name
will bind funds held by him as administrator of an
estate in which the defendant has an interest. (C. P.)
Baltz Co. v. Livingston, 143.
An attachment issued against garnishees as exec-
utors of Bunting cannot be amended so as to be
against executors of Clark where intervening rights
would be affected by such amendment. (0. C.)
Bunting's Estate, 487.
Interrogatories as to what money the defendant
may have in the garnishee's hands in his wife's name
should be answered. The garnishee is a mere stake-
holder, and should make full disclosure. (C. P.)
Palmer v. Allen, 211.
Admissions of garnishee holding property, when
not sufficient to justify judgment against garnishee
for money. (C. P.) Wilson v. Morrow, 89.
See TAX SALES.
EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS.
See DECEDENTS' ESTATES.
EXEMPTION. See DECEDENTS' ESTATES. EXE-
From taxation. See TAXES AND TAXATION.
FAMILY SETTLEMENT. Consideration for.
See CONTRACT. Burkholder's Appeal, 234. Wilen's
Appeal, 539.
FEES, of examiner, by whom payable. See Equi-
TY. Yerkes's Appeal, 510.
FOREIGN ATTACHMENT-Continued.
A declaration in the common counts with a bill of
particulars in foreign attachment may be amended
by filing special counts. (C. P.) Sims v. Stribler,
29.
Justices of the peace have no power to issue attach-
ments against non-resident debtors, where the plain-
tiff's claim exceeds $100. (C. P.) Ross v. Miller,
253.
Review of the Acts of Assembly conferring power
on justices of the peace to issue writs of attachment.
Ib.
FORFEITURE OF POLICY. See INSURANCE,
LIFE. Smith v. National Life Ins. Co., 129.
FORMER RECOVERY. See RES ADJUDICATA.
FRAUD. When an insolvent debtor in fraud of
his creditors assigns his property to a third person,
taking from him judgment notes for the value thereof,
and subsequently assigns one of such judgment notes
as collateral security to a creditor who has knowledge
of the fraud, the maker of such note cannot set up
the fraud as a defence in an action brought against
him by the creditor thereon. Winton v. Freeman,
324.
What not a fraudulent concealment, as between
debtor and creditor. See DEBTOR and Creditor. San-
key v. McElevey, 19.
FRAUDS, STATUTE OF. A parol promise to
indemnify one, if he will go security for a third
person, is within the Statute of Frauds. (C. P.) Nu-
gent v. Wolfe, 290.
One partner cannot bind his copartners jointly with
himself to pay the debt of another. Shaaber v.
Bushong, 352.
A promise to pay a note out of money belonging to
the maker in the hands of the promissor when the
note falls due, and if that fund be insufficient, that
the promissor would individually pay the same, is
a promise to pay the debt of another within the Stat-
ute of Frauds. Ib.
A mortgage is not a conveyance of land within the
Statute of Frauds (C. P.) Gross v. Reinhard, 224.
Where title to land is claimed under a parol con-
tract of sale, the evidence of such contract, and of
performance thereunder, must be definite and un-
equivocal, in order to take the case out of the Statute
of Frauds. Lund e. Brown, 489.
An express trust, and not a trust ex maleficio, is
within the Act of April 22, 1856. Salter ". Bird, 152.
What circumstances construed to constitute an ex-
press trust. Ib.
A parol sale of specific land for a sum certain, fol-
Of counsel, administrator, when entitled to credit
for. See DECEDENTS' ESTATES. (O. C.) Ketler's Es-lowed by possession in pursuance thereof, and the
making of valuable improvements will create such an
equitable interest as will be bound by the lien of a
judgment against the vendee. The sheriff's vendee
of this equitable title is entitled to all the rights of
the judgment debtor, including the right to recover
possession. Hutchison v. Kerr, 39.
An agreement by an agent for sale of land, not au-
thorized in writing to make the same, is invalid. (C.
See P.) Heinicke v. Krouse, 106.
FIRE-ESCAPES, whose duty to erect.
LANDLORD AND TENANT. Schott v. Harvey, 263.
FIXTURES, when the subject of a distress.
LANDLORD AND TENANT. Furbush v. Chappell, 347.
FOREIGN ATTACHMENT, does not lie
against an absconding debtor. (C. P.) Scott v.
Hilgert, 305.
The burden of proving non-residence of the de-
fendant is on the attaching creditor. On a motion to
dissolve the Court will not grant a feigned issue to
test the place of residence. Ib.
FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE, who cannot
set aside. See DEBTOr and CreditOR. Zuver v. Clark,
36.
FUNERAL EXPENSES, not necessaries. See
HUSBAND AND WIFE. (O. C.) Wistar's Estate, 45.
GIFT, what not sufficient evidence of as between
husband and wife. See HUSBAND AND WIFE. McDer-
mott's Appeal, 425.
GROUND-RENT. See LANDLORD AND TENANT.
|