ACCEPTANCE. Where a lease provides that
the lessee may become purchaser or lessee of addi-
tional land, provided terms are agreed upon be-
tween him and the lessor within a given time, and,
before the expiration of that time, the lessor telegraphs
that he has been offered a certain sum for the land,
and requests an immediate answer, which telegraph
the lessee receives, but does not answer for two days,
when he accepts: such acceptance, the lessor having
in the interval sold the property, is too late. Childs
v. Gillespie, 341.

When

ACCORD AND SATISFACTION.
creditors enter into a composition on the understand-
ing that it is binding on all the creditors, it is a
contract between the creditors themselves and not
merely between the debtor and his creditors. (C. P.)
Eisenhart v. Lyun, 113.

If an agreement is made to accept notes payable
in a certain time, and subsequently the debtor agrees
to pay in cash before the maturity of the notes, and
this settlement is agreed to by the other creditors, it is
binding on one who is a party to the agreement.

Id.

In an action on a foreign judgment, the defence was
that the plaintiffs agreed that if defendant would en-
ter their service they would, beside paying him wages,
accept such service in full for the claim for which
the judgment was taken; that he entered the ser-
vice and there remained until he left it by agree-
ment with the plaintiffs; it appeared that the judg-
ment was entered, for default, in the interval between
the agreement and the actual entry upon service:
held, the defendant set out a good defence, since the
plaintiffs might properly enter their judgment, because
it was not certain that the defendant would ultimately
enter their service, and he could not plead the
agreement to the pending suit, because it was then
only an accord, the satisfaction being a subsequent
act, not inconsistent with the judgment and not con-
cluded by it. Potter v. Hartnett, 567.

ACCUMULATIONS. Where the income of a
fund is directed to be accumulated for the benefit of
a minor, the Orphans' Court may nevertheless ap-
ply the income to his support, when there are no
other adequate means for his maintenance or educa-
tion. (O. C.) Kinike's Estate, 163.

Accumulations of income during the minority of a
legatee, cestui que trust, who dies before attaining full
age, belong to his estate and not to the remainderman,
to whom the estate is limited on the first legatee's
death under age. (O. C.) McHugh's Estate, 575. See
TRUSTS. Hibbs's Estate, 19.

Distress, 493.

1853, April 18.
1855, April 26.
1856, April 22.
1857, April 18.

1857, May 14.

1859, April 13.

1872, April 8.

1874, April 22.

1874, April 29.

1874, May 14.

Statute of Frauds, 115.
Statutory Remedies, 190.
Jurisdiction of Justices, 201.
Wills, 176, 219.

Charging Realty with Dece-

dent's Debts, 299.
Partition, 412.

Attachment Execution, 92, 478.
Road Law, 481.

Lunatics, 186, 550.
Orphans' Court Sale, 573.
Orphans' Court, 479.
Mechanics' Liens, 393.
Arbitration, 282.
Bill of Review, 346.
Warrant of Arrest, 521.
Tax Lien, 113.

Revision of Taxes, 353.

Mercantile License Tax, 13.
Wills, 560.

Railroads, 167, 254.

Orphans' Court Sale, 573.

Price Act, 185.

Accumulations, 19.

Charities, 219, 337.

Trusts, 159.

AMENDMENT-Continued.
thereof, the Supreme Court will not exercise its power
of amendment. Park v. Holmes, 492.

ANTE-NUPTIAL CONTRACT. To annul an
ante-nuptial contract on the ground of fraud, practised
upon the intended wife, there must be proof by two
witnesses or the equivalent thereof. Kesler's Estate,

15.

To revoke an ante-nuptial agreement there must be
meritorious or valuable consideration; such consid-
eration is not found where the wife, after having
estranged herself from her husband on account of the
contract, comes back to him, and abandons threatened
legal proceedings. Id.

APPEAL. No appeal, properly so called, lies
from the action of the Quarter Sessions in forfeiting a
recognizance. Commonwealth v. Bird, 14.

An appeal from a magistrate may be allowed by
the Common Pleas, nunc pro tunc, after the expiration
of twenty days; where the magistrate has had no
jurisdiction, or by his statement has misled the party.
an appeal will always be allowed. C. P.) Heston-
ville Pass. Ry. Co. v. Boyle, 201.
APPLICATION

PAYMENT.

OF PAYMENTS.

See

ARBITRATION. A rule to refer to arbitration
is not applicable to an attachment execution, even
where an issue of fact has been raised between the
plaintiff and the garnishee. Stranahan v. Wright 282.
ARCHITECT. An architect who prepares a de-
sign for another person is entitled to be paid, without
being obliged to show that the design is patented or
copyrighted. New England Monument Co. v. John-
son, 117.

ASSIGNMENT. An assignment of a payment
upon a contract is valid only where there is a debt
due the assignor or a fund belonging to him, which
he himself has a right to demand, or upon which
he has a right to draw. Hazleton Mercantile Co. Ltd
v. Union Improvement Co. 144.

C. made a contract with the U. Company to con-
struct a canal; he was to be paid monthly upon esti-
mates, ten per cent of the amount appearing due each
month to be retained until the canal was accepted;
the canal was to be finished in five months; if not
pushed vigorously, the company reserved the right to
employ extra laborers at C.'s expense, or to forfeit the
contract, in which case the retained percentages were to
be forfeited; more than a year after the work had be-
gun, C. gave an order on the U. Company to H. for $1600
"payable out of my final estimate." This order was
not accepted by the U. Company. A month later C.
assigned his contract and unpaid percentages to M.,
whom the U. Company employed to finish the work:
held, that no right in the fund arising from the un-
paid percentages passed to H. by the assignment.
Id.

ASSIGNMENT FOR BENEFIT OF CREDI-
TORS-Continued.

sequent execution-creditors, not as to the assignee or
other creditors. Id.

Where a bank has made au assignment, one who
has sold his stock to the bank itself, with notice
actual or constructive of its insolvency, and has re-
ceived in payment certificates of deposit, cannot re-
cover a dividend on such certificates with the other
creditors of the bank, but as against them has uo
right superior to those of a shareholder. Stevens's
Appeal, 453; Steward's Appeal, 456; McGrath's Ap-
peal, 458.

The creditors cannot use the name of the assignee
for benefit of creditors as legal plaintiff in an eject-
ment against the debtor, unless the title of the assig.
nee is either admitted or established. (C. P.) Guar-
antee Trust Co. v. Powel, 571.

ASSUMPSIT. Assumpsit will lie to recover for
a breach of a contract to enter into a partnership.
New England Monument Co. v. Johnson, 117.

In cases where there is but a single transaction and
no complicated accounts to adjust, assumpsit will lie
between partners. Id.

ATTACHMENT. An attachment against a non-
resident is fatally defective, if issued without a pre-
vious affidavit of non-residence of the defendant, but
the defect can be taken advantage of only by a
motion to quash; it is cured if the defendant go to
trial. Bollinger v Gallagher, 89.

In attachment execution with scire facias, the plain-
tiff may add to the writ, after it has been issued and
tested, the names of garnishees. (C. P.) McCambridge
v. Barry, 92.

An attachment execution is not a civil suit or action
within the meaning of the Act of June 16, 1836, P.
L. 719, providing for compulsory arbitration. Strana-
han v. Wright, 282.

An attachment issued after a valid assignment of
the debtor's interest is too late. (O. C.) Seipe's Trust
Estate, 415.

A counsel fee to garnishee will not be taxed when
the garnishee has a fund in his hands substantially
greater than the plaintiff's claim. (C. P.) Getz v.
Smith, 459; (C. P.) Johuson v. Smith, 477.

Where a garnishee admits a sum in his hands due
defendant and, after issue framed, the sum is increased
and he consents to the entry of a judgment for the
increased sum, he will not be deprived of his counsel
fee, as having made a false answer. (C. P.) Geist v.
Hartman, 477.

A domestic corporation may be brought in as a gar-
nishee by service, upon one of its principal officers, any-
where within the jurisdiction of the Court issuing the
process. (C. P.) Reynolds v. Lochiel Iron & Steel,
Works, 478.

ASSIGNMENT FOR BENEFIT OF CREDI-
TORS. An assignee for benefit of creditors is not a
purchaser, but a mere volunteer claiming through the
assignor, and the creditors of the latter claim through
the former. Mathews's Assigned Estate, 430.

out a prima facie case; this is neutralized by showing
that the judgment was opened and a verdict for de-
fendant obtained; but the plaintiff may show that the
verdict was fraudulent and collusive. Palmer v. Gil-
more, 556.

ATTORNEY. The word "attorney" used in the
Procedure Act of May 25, 1887, means an attorney-at-
law; it does not include an attorney-in-fact. Kelly v.
Herb, 526.

An attorney-at-law is disqualified from practice, not

ATTORNEY-Continued.

by his appointment to, but by his entrance upon, judi-
cial office. Id.

BAILMENT. A deposit of property with an-
other, from whom it may be taken at any time by the
depositor, is a bailment, and is not converted to a con-
ditional sale by an understanding that if the bailee
pay to the bailor the sum which the property has
cost him, the bailor will transfer the said property to
the bailee. Stoddart v. Price, 83.

BANK DIRECTOR. A bank director, being a
gratuitous mandatary, is not held to the same care
that he takes of his own affairs. Swentzel v. Penn
Bank, 441.

A bank director is liable for gross negligence in the
performance of his duties; but if he perform his duties
in the same way that all other bank directors in the
same city perform their similar duties, he is not guilty
of gross negligence. Id.

A bank was wrecked by its president and cashier,
who stood well in the community, by adroit means
which could only be discoverable by an examination
of the "Individual Ledger," which, by the rules of the
bank, and of most other banks in the same city, was
not open to the directors, who performed their duties
faithfully in the manner in which they were per-
formed by directors of other neighboring banks: held,
the directors were not liable for the losses occasioned
y the wrecking. Id.

A director of a bank, whose firm has a deposit
therein, who, using his knowledge gained as director,
draws out said deposit on the day the bank fails, must
repay the amount. Id.

It is the duty of a bank director to participate intel-
ligently in its management, and he is chargeable with
notice of whatever he would have learned had he ful-
filled his duty. Stevens's Appeal, 453.

BANKS AND BANKING. Under the National
banking Act there is no distinction between "dis-
count" and "purchase;" the former word includes a
purchase by way of discount." (U. S. C. C. of A.)
Danforth v. National State Bank, 22.

A national bank has the right to acquire drafts and
notes only by way of discount.
Id.

A delivery of a note to a bank by a broker, without
indorsement, does not prove that the transaction was
not a discount. Id.

Where a national bank knowingly takes, receives,
reserves, or charges usurious interest upon a note or
draft, the interest-bearing quality of the instrument is
destroyed, and no interest can be recovered from any
person. ld.

A national bank has no right to appropriate a gen-
eral payment by acceptors of drafts to the payment of
oreited interest thereon. Id.

Where a check is presented on the day after its
date, the solvency of the bank in the interim between
the date of the check and its presentment is the risk
of the drawer. (C. P.) Doherty v. Watson, 32.

A national bank or the clearing-house, which is an
association of national banks, may acquire title to
commercial paper by surrendering to the transferror,
as a consideration therefor, other notes held by it as
security for a debt due to it by the transferror; such
method of acquiring title is not in violation of Rev.
Statutes, § 5136 or § 5242. (C. P.) Philler v. Field,
139; (C. P.) Philler v. Esler, 258.

A depositor in an insolvent national bank may set
off the amount of his deposit against a claim against
him upon a note discounted by the bank, and maturing
alter its failure. (U. S. C. C.) Yardley v. Clothier, 305.

BANKS AND BANKING-Continued.

Where a bank director is a member of a firm, de-
positor in the bank, and, on information obtained as a
director, draws out the deposit on the day the bank
fails, he will be compelled to replace it. Swentzel v.
Penn Bank, 441.

BILL OF REVIEW. Under the Act of Oct. 13,
1840 (P. L. 1841, p. 1), a review is demandable, as of
right, for error of law patent on the record or for new
matter which has arisen since the decree, and, as a
favor, for proof, which has been newly discovered and
could not have been used when the decree was made.
(O. C.) Lee's Estate, 346.

A review is demandable at any time, upon proof of
fraud, unless the petitioner has been guilty of laches,
since the discovery thereof; and, in determining the
length of time during which inaction must be con-
tinued to constitute laches in this respect, semble, the
limitation of five years prescribed by the Act of Oct.
13, 1840, will be followed by analogy. Id.

The rules of equity pleading apply to bills of review,
and an answer will, therefore, overrule a plea. Id.
BONDS. See PARTNERSHIP ASSOCIATION, LIMITED.
Cock v. Bailey, 233.

BOROUGHS. The Act of April 22, 1889, P. L. 39,
authorizing boroughs to levy a tax upon backs, etc.,
and collect the same is constitutional. See CoNSTITU-
TIONAL LAW. Borough of Washington v. McGeorge, 251.
Such tax may be collected by proceedings before a
magistrate. Id.

A bridge company, possessed of the franchise of
erecting and maintaining a bridge over a navigable
stream, is vested with full discretion as to the number
and location of its piers, and is not liable for an acci-
dent occurring through the presence of a pier, unless
it be shown that the company wantonly and wilfully
abused its discretion. Jutte v. Keystone Bridge Co.,
169.

The removal of a false pier, which is a necessary
part of the construction of a bridge, is as much
within the discretionary power of the owner of the
franchise as is any other part of the work. Id.

See FERRIES. Bridgewater Ferry Co. v. Sharon
Bridge Co., 141.

BURDEN OF PROOF. Where one alleges a
partnership, the burden is on him to show it. Hall-
stead v. Curtis, 129.

Where it is sought to recover on a prommissory note
against defendants not parties thereto. the burden is
on the plaintiffs to show that the note was made by
defendants' authority for a debt due by them. Free-
port Bank v. Egan, 334.

See NEGLIGENCE. Henry v. Klopfer, 331.

BY-LAWS. A by-law of an Exchange provided
that any member failing to fulfil his contracts should
notify the president thereof, who should, thereupon,
post a notice of the failure; that in case a failing
member should neglect to give such notice, the presi
dent should call a meeting of the directors to investi
gate the case, and, on proof of the failure, the president
should post a notice; "and such member shall be
debarred from all the privileges of membership, in-
cluding admission to the floor, until satisfactory set-
tlements are made with members of the Exchange":
hid, (1) the by-law was good; (2) the penalty of ex
clusion was incurred by failure to meet contracts, and
was not confined to cases in which the member neg
lected to give notice of his failure. (C. P.) Sexton
v. Commercial Exchange, 259.

Neither false English nor bad grammar will render
void a by-law, or deflect it from its purpose where the
true meaning is apparent. Id.

Steinbrun-

CARLISLE TABLES. Evidence of expectation
of life in an accident case. See EVIDENCE.
ner v. Pittsburgh & Western Ry. Co. 173.
CASES AFFIRMED, REVERSED, OVER-
RULED, FOLLOWED, DISTINGUISH-
ED, Etc.

Armstrong v. Scott, 36 Fed. Rep. 63, disapproved,
307.

Atlantic State Bank v. Savery, 82 N. Y. 291, fol-
lowed, 22.

Bryant v. Stilwell, 24 Pa. 314, approved, 274.
Caldeleugh v. Hollingsworth, 8 W. & S. 302, fol-
lowed, 494.

Commonwealth v. Dickinson, 3 Clark, 265, fol-
lowed, 500.

Commonwealth v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 37
Leg. Int. 407, followed, 102.

Commonwealth v. Vandyke, 57 Pa 34, followed,
290.

Commonwealth v. Waller, 28 WEEKLY NOTES, 252,
reversed, 191.

Commonwealth v. Watmough, 6 Whar. 117, fol-
lowed, 290,

Curtin v. Somerset, 140 Pa. 70, followed, 339.
Dershimer v. Maloney, 28 WEEKLY NOTES, 477, fol-
lowed, 186.

Dixon v. Guggenheim, 7 Phila. 408, approved, 318.
Duncan v. Bell, 28 Pa. 516, report of criticised,
421.

Dyer's Appeal, 107 Pa. 446, followed, 162.
Eckman v. Eckman, 68 Pa. 460, followed, 284.
Eichelberger v. Barnitz, 9 Watts, 447, followed,
242.

Frazier v. St. Luke's Church, 28 WEEKLY NOTES,
307, affirmed, 337.

Gillespie v. McGowan, 100 Pa. 144, followed, 385.
Gramlich v. Wurst, 86 Pa. 74, followed, 385.
Guthrie v. Reid, 107 Pa. 251, followed, 22.
Gyger v. West Phila. Pass. Ry. Co., 136 Pa. 96,
approved and explained, 542.

Haehulen v. Con'th, 13 Pa. 617, distinguished, 359.
Hayman v. P. R. R., 118 Pa. 70; 20 WEEKLY
NOTES, 466, followed, 376.
Hestonville R. R. v. Philadelphia, 89 Pa. 210,
approved, 542.

Hood's Estate, 21 Pa. 106, distinguished, 553.
Howell's Estate, 28 WEEKLY NOTES, 273, affirmed,
297.

Importers' & Traders' Nat. Bank v. Littell, 18
Vroom, 233, not followed, 22.

Insurance Co. v. Dunham, 117 Pa. 460, followed, 8.
Jackson Township v. Wagner, 127 Pa. 184, dis-
tinguished, 385.

Life Association v. Musser, 120 Pa. 384, followed, 8.
Lloyd v. Krause, 28 WEEKLY NOTES, 305, affirmed,
429.

Miller v. Commonwealth, 5 Pa. 294, distinguished,
290.

Millvale Borough v. Evergreen Pass. Ry. Co., 131
Pa. 1. approved, 542.

National Bank v. Johuson, 104 U. S. 271, fol-
lowed, 22.

Norristown Title Co. v. Insurance Co., 132 Pa.
385, followed, 8.

Penna. R. R. v. Commonwealth, 94 Pa. 474, ex-
plained, 102.

Penna. R. R. v. MacKinney, 124 Pa. 462; 23
WEEKLY NOTES, 353, followed, 376.
Pittsburgh Junction R. R. Co.'s Appeal, 122 Pa.
511, distinguished, 227.

Rex v. Higgins, 2 East, 5, followed, 243.
Robb v. Carnegie Bros., 28 WEEKLY NOTES, 339,
followed, 292.

Ruchizky v. De Haven, 97 Pa. 202, distinguished,
537.

Russell v. Bell, 44 Pa. 47, followed, 393.

Sharon Rw. Co.'s Appeal, 122 Pa. 533, distin-

guished, 227.

Sloat v. Royal Ins. Co., 49 Pa. 14, followed, 238.
Smith v. Commonwealth, 54 Pa. 209, distin-
guished, 243.

Smith v. Exchange Bank, 26 Oh. St. 141, not
followed, 22.

Spear v. P. W. & B. R. R. Co., 119 Pa. 61; 21
WEEKLY NOTES, 87, distinguished, 376.
Stabler v. Commonwealth, 95 Pa. 318, distin-
guished, 243.

Stevens v. Churchman, 32 Mo. Appeal, 333, dis-
approved, 307.

Sticker v. Overpeck, 127 Pa. 446, approved, 274.
Treftz v. King, 74 Pa. 350, followed, 486.

Waugh v. Waugh, 84 Pa. 350, followed, 284.
Wheeler v. Philadelphia, 77 Pa. 338, followed,
330.

Young v. Lyman, 9 Pa. 449, distinguished, 393.
Zimmerman v. Anders, 6 W. & S. 218, followed,
337.

CHARGE OF COURT. While in charging a
jury a Judge should present the case fully, fairly,
and adequately, and, in reviewing the evidence, must
not be inaccurate on matters of substance, or omit
or slur over the strong points on either side, yet it
must be left largely to his discretion to determine to
what extent detail shall be entered into. Borham v.
Davis, 467.

CHARGE OF LEGACIES UPON REALTY.
See LEGACIES. (0. C.) Markley's Estate, 211, 212.
Duvall's Estate, 242.

CHARITIES. A bequest or devise for a charit-
able use is not void because given to a person or cor-
poration incapable of taking or holding the legal title.
Frazier v. St. Luke's Church, 337.

Where a gift is made to a charity, designating as
trustee a corporation forbidden by law to hold the sub-
ject of the gift, a trustee may be appointed under the
Act of April 26, 1855, P. L. 331, who will use the cor-
poration as an agent to administer the charity in ac-
cordance with the will of the donor or testator. Ide

CHECK. A check which is presented at the bank
the day after its date is presented with due prompt-
ness, and if between the date and the presentment the
bank fail, the drawer is not discharged. (C. P.)
Doherty v. Watson, 32.

CHURCH. Exemption of church property from
taxation ceases so soon as the property ceases to be
used as a place of worship. See TAXATION. Moore v.
Taylor, 495.

CITIZEN. A citizen who, in obedience to positive
orders from the municipality, performs an act which
causes loss to another person, is not personally liable
for the consequences thereof, although the Act from
which the city derived its right to issue the orders is
afterwards declared unconstitutional. Dunn v. Mellon,
272.

CLEARING HOUSE. See NATIONAL BANK. (C.
P.) Philler v. Field, 139.

CLUB. A club which has no license under the Act
of May 13, 1887, has no right to sell liquor to its mem-
bers, and furnishing such liquor at a price exceeding