Abbildungen der Seite

promise by the defendant to gua-| rantee, and the insolvency of the obligor, parol evidence was not admissible to show an undertaking by the defendant to guarantee the bill, no fraud, mistake, or omission of the scrivener being alleged. Heagy v. Umberger.


29. After the protest of a notary has been given in evidence by the plaintiff in a suit against the indorser of a promissory note, the defendant may call the notary to explain the protest, and even, it seems, to contradict it.

Query, whether the notary himself may object to being questioned for the purpose of contradicting his certificate of protest. Craig v. Shallcross.


30. A paper certified by the sur-
veyor general to be a true copy
of a list of the first grantees or
renters from the proprietaries,
extracted from book No. 31, re-
maining in his office, is evidence
in ejectment to show title.
A commission was returned from
Barbadoes, and the return certi-
fied, that the execution of the
commission appeared by the ex-
aminations hereto annexed."
Held that a deposition not fas-
tened to the com mmission, but
enclosed in a cover under the
hands and seals of the commis-
sioners, and subscribed by them
was evidence, there being no rea-
son to suspect fraud or imposi-

A copy of the register of marriages, baptisms and burials of a parish in the Island of Barbadoes,

notarial seal of office, held good evidence to prove pedigree. Kingston v. Lesley.





If after a recognizance entered into for a stay of execution, the plaintiff issue a fi. fa. against the defendants in the original suit, within the time of stay allowed by law, and obtain part of the debt from one of the original defendants, under a menace of levying the execution, this does not discharge the recogni


A fi. fa. issued within the period of the stay, after security entered, is a nullity, and trespass lies against the plaintiff or prothonotary for issuing it. Milliken v. Brown.



If an execution issue against several defendants, and the assignee of one pay the amount thereof to the sheriff, who marks the execution satisfied, if such payment was in reality a purchase of the judgment the sheriff may correct the indorsement and proceed on the writ: but if the assignee had funds in his hands to pay the debt, and there are circumstances to show it was intended as a payment, the jury may so consider it, and the sheriff's proceeding afterwards on the writ will be considered a trespass. Kuhn v. North. 399

certified to be a true copy by the EXECUTOR DE SON TORT.


rector of the parish, proved by the oath of a witness, taken before the deputy secretary of the Island and notary public, (his, handwriting and office, being proved,) under his hand and,


See HUSBAND and Wife.

[blocks in formation]

If the owner continues in possession after an absolute assignment of goods, it is fraud per se, unless the possession is according to some condition or trust expressed in the assignment. Evidence of the declarations of the servant of a debtor who had made an assignment of property, that he was hired by the debtor and was still in his employ about the property, made after the assignment, though not in the presence of the assignee, is good to show the assignment colourable. Babb v. Clemson. 419


1. A fugitive from a foreign country cannot be arrested in Philadelphia by a magistrate on a charge by a private person, of having committed murder in such foreign country, in order. to afford an opportunity to the executive of the United States to deliver him up to the government of that country. Query, whether the executive of the United States or of Pennsylvania has a right to apply to a magistrate to arrest a fugitive criminal for such purpose? Commonwealth at the instance of Short v. Deacon.





2. Where the vendee wilfully alters a bill of sale, for the pur-1. pose of covering property from execution, such altered instrument is not evidence to go to the jury.


Bequest of money by will to the children of the testator's daughter; the testator afterwards provides by codicil, that the money shall be paid to his

daughter when she is either divorced from her husband, or voluntarily withdraws from him. In the event of the separation of the daughter from her husband by his desertion of her, this is a bequest to her separate use. The suit for such legacy should be brought in the name of the husband and wife: but if brought by the wife without the husband, advantage must be taken of it by plea in abatement; the objection is not available in arrest of judgment or in error. Perry v. Boileau.


2. A feme covert joined her husband in a deed of her real estate, but never separately acknowledged it, conveying the estate to trustees for the payment of the husband's debts, and then in trust for her separate use. Afterwards, living in a state of separation, the wife, by an instrument purporting to be her last will, disposed of the property and died: held that the disposition was void. West v. West. 445


1. The defendant engaged to keep the plaintiff clear of back interest, but not doing so, judgment was obtained for it against the plaintiff. Held, that from that moment the plaintiff was damnified, and might sue on the engagement. Gardener v. Grove.




1. An indictment for a libel is bad, if it charges that the defendant published a certain libel, the substance of which is as follows:

the very words of the libel must be set out. Commonwealth v. Sweeney. 173

2. An indictment against a justice of the peace for refusing a copy of his proceedings, ought to state a previous tender of his fee for that service, and the want of it is fatal. Wilson v. The Commonwealth. 373


An indictment against a county commissioner under the act of 21st March, 1816, for being interested in the management and superintendence of a public building under the authority of the commissioners, he being then a commissioner, must be prosecuted in the Quarter Sessions: the Mayor's Court has not jurisdiction. Commonwealth v. Thum.




If consentable lines are fairly made between adjoining tracts, by a guardian on behalf of an infant, and an adult, the latter, or those claiming under him, cannot object on the ground of the infancy: and, it seems, that if the infant do not dissent when he comes of age, but acquiesces, he is for ever bound. Brown v. Caldwell. 114




By an assignment under the acts of 1729-30, and 1798, the debtors estate in land passess to the trustees, though their assent does not appear. An assignment by trustees appointed under an act of assembly made after the act has expired passes the estate, and the assignees may maintain ejectment. Gray v. Hiil.


[blocks in formation]

judgment on his mortgage, evi- | 1. dence is not admissible to show that the scire facias on the mortgage which was returned served was not served.

Nor is evidence admissible to


show, that the mortgage money for which judgment was recovered by default, was paid. Blythe v. Richards.. 3. An insolvent debtor made a ge-2 neral assignment on the 24th November, 1819, indebted to C. on a judgment obtained against him on the 1st of April, 1818, to the plaintiff on a mortgage gi ven the 18th of May, 1819, and to the United States, on judgments for duties rendered the 16th of August, and 15th of November, 1819. Held, that C. had 'the prior right to the monies in court, raised by a sale of the mortgaged premises under a levari facias. Wilcocks v. Waln. 380 4. If one owning several tracts of land bound by a judgment against him, sells one tract to A., the remaining tracts being more than sufficient to pay the judgment, and afterwards sells one of the remaining tracts to B., who has notice of the circumstances, if B's. tract is taken in execution, and the judgment satisfied by the sale of it, B. cannot maintain assumpsit on an implied promise against A. for contribution. Nailer v. Stanley. 460

[blocks in formation]

Though on an appeal from a justice, the instrument declared on in the Common Pleas be stated differently from that mentioned by the justice in some particulars, yet this court will not reverse the judgment, if the cause of action appear in reality to have been the same before both. Bechtel v. Cobaugh. 121 Account render is not within the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace.


the justice of the peace has no jurisdiction of a case, the Common Pleas have none on appeal. Guy v. Wright. 227


A refusal by a justice of the peace to deliver a copy of his proceedings to either party on demand, is indictable under the act of assembly.

The sentence of the court in such case ordering the fine of ten dollars to be paid to the commonwealth, is regular. Wilson v. The Commonwealth. 373




1. Testator ordered the residue of his real and personal estate to be sold, and out of the moneys arising therefrom, after the payment of debts and certain legacies, gave legacies to his seven children and grandchildren, and directed that if the money should not be sufficient, to pay the legacies bequeathed, then the last mentioned legacies to his children and grandchildren should abate proportionably, but if it should be more than sufficient, then the residue should be divided amongst the last mention

« ZurückWeiter »