DAMAGES-Continued.

In an action against a railroad company for failing
to supply the plaintiff with a free pass for himself and
family during life, the measure of damages is the cash
value of such a pass, as near as can be ascertained.
Erie R. R. Co. v. Douthet, 494.

Upon a bill in equity against a corporation by par-
ties who had purchased stock fraudulently issued by
the president in excess of the amount authorized by
law, the measure of damages is the market value of the
stock at the date of a demand by the holder for a trans-
fer, or if no demand were made, at the date of filing the
bill. (C. P.) Willis v. Darby R. R. Co., 461.

Where the lessee of mining rights having trespassed
unwittingly on the land of his lessor, who by covenant
might have protected himself against the consequences
of such trespass, is sued by his lessor, the damages can
not include such as have arisen from criminal neglect
or improper mining. Freck v. Locust Mountain Coal
Co., 5.

A householder who so constructs his roof that a large
quantity of water is collected, which is precipitated
through his neighbor's wall, cannot relieve himself
from responsibility for damage by showing that if the
wall had been well built, the water would not have gone
through, but if some damage would have been done
apart from the defendant's negligence, the jury must
separate the damage and apportion the loss where it
properly belongs. Gould v. McKenna, 57.

Exemplary damages. The fact that the defend-
ant is liable to indictment and punishment at the suit
of the Commonwealth, is no bar to a jury in a civil
action giving the party aggrieved vindictive damages in
a case which justly calls for them. Barr v. Moore, 273.
In admiralty where both vessels are in fault damages
for a collision will be apportioned between both vessels.
(U. S. D. C.) The Margaret, 304.

Eminent domain, damages in cases of. A life estate
in lands is an independent interest entitled to damages
for injuries sustained by the construction of a railroad.
How the damages should be divided between the life
tenant and remainder man. Pittsburgh R. R. Co. v.
Bentley, 289.

In the absence of express charter liability a railroad
company is not liable for annoyance to a property
owner on a street occupied by the railroad, resulting
from the passage of trains, noise, smoke, and cinders.
Struthers v. Dunkirk R. R. Co., 161.

Where a canal company takes a strip of land for the
purpose of widening its canal, the measure of damage
is the difference in value of the entire tract of the
claimant before and after the taking, not the value of
the strip itself. Penna. Canal Co. v. Hill, 182.

Although a railroad company entering upon land
without authority of law is a trespasser, it does not
thereby dedicate to the owner such structures as may
be erected upon the property, and in subsequent pro-
ceedings by the owner to have the value of the land
taken assessed against the company, the value of the
land alone without such erections, must be considered.
Justice v. Nesquehoning Valley R. R. Co., 374.

Where a railroad is so constructed as to interfere
with a watercourse, the company is responsible for all
the direct consequences of throwing the water over the
adjacent lands. Gordon r. Penna. R. R. Co., 405.

The fact that the land occupied by a railroad had
formerly been taken for a canal, and damages for the
taking had been paid to the owners is immaterial, be-
cause in such first computation of damages, the injury
to land holders from the flooding of lands was not con-
sidered. Ib.

See RAILROAD, Negligence, MINES AND MINING.

DEBT. An action of debt does not lie upon a mort-
gage, which, although reciting an indebtedness, does
not contain an express covenant to pay. Fidelity Co.
v. Miller, 553.

DEBTOR AND CREDITOR. Where delivery
of exclusive possession accompanies an absolute or con-
ditional sale, a reservation of lien or right of property
in the vendor will not protect the property from the
vendee's creditors. Chattel mortgages are not favored
in Pennsylvania. Euwer v. Van Giesen, 363.

The retention of possession of goods by the defendant
after a sheriff's sale, with the permission of the pår-
chaser, is not necessarily fraudulent as to the creditors
of such defendant. Maynes v. Atwater, 535.

An insolvent guardian, who has embezzled the estate
of his ward, and is attached by the Orphans' Court for
failure to obey its decree, is not entitled to discharge
under the insolvent laws, but will be committed to
await his trial in the Quarter Sessions. Ex parte
Blumer, 171.

Appropriation of payments, settlement of, be-
tween several diverse interests. Caley v. Hoopes, 326.
Where there is an indebtedness on open account and
one secured by a mechanic's lien, and a payment is
made on account, in the absence of any appropriation
by the parties at the time, the law will apply the pay-
ment to the claim least secure. M'Kelvy v. Jarvis, 202.

Collateral securities. A creditor of a bankrupt
holding collateral securities may have them appraise i
and prove his debt for the balance, and then proceed
upon the collateral. Streeper v. McKee, 169.

A creditor holding stock assigned to him as collateral
security for the payment of a promissory note, is not
bound, upon the non-payment of the note at maturity,
to sell the stock at its market value without notice
from the debtor so to do; and the fact that the stock
subsequently becomes worthless is no defence to an
action on the note. O'Neill v. Whigham, 210.

A mortgagee to whom a perpetual policy of insurance
is assigned as collateral security, is entitled to the re-
turn premium upon a foreclosure of the mortgage and
sale of the mortgaged premises for an amount insuffi-
cient to satisfy the debt. Rafsnyder's Appeal, 463.

See ASSIGNMENt for Benefit OF CREDITORS. FRAUD.
DECEDENTS' ESTATES. The Orphans'
Court, as an incident to the power of distribution,
being competent to decide all questions in the way of
distribution as against creditors or assignees of lega-
tees, etc., its judgment is conclusive upon parties sub-
mitting themselves to its decree. Otterson v. Galla-
gher, 555.

Although an attaching creditor of a legatee may not
be compelled to present his claim in the Orphans'
Court, yet if he submits himself, an adjudication
against him, unappealed from, is final, and estops him
from proceeding upon his attachment in the Common
Pleas. Ib.

Who entitled to letters of administration.
Where letters of administration upon the estate of a
non-resident were granted to a competent person at
the request of the next of kin residing in the State,
the widow, upon subsequently removing into the
State, is not entitled to have the first letters revoked,
and new letters granted to herself. Sharpe's Appeal,
51.

Ancillary administration. In an ancillary admin-
istration after payment of creditors resident in this
State, the balance will be remitted to the administrator
of the domicil. Barry's Appeal, 383.

Contract of decedent, specifically enforced. An
agreement executed under hand and seal, whereby a
decedent, for a valuable consideration, covenanted not

DECEDENTS' ESTATES—Continued.

to convey or encumber a certain estate, but to leave
the same to his heirs, will be specifically enforced as
against devisees claiming under his will. Taylor v.
Mitchell, 378.

Claim for services against. A decree of the
Orphans' Court allowing a claim for services rendered
a decedent during his life, will not be reversed, unless
the entire evidence be brought up. Appeal of the
Presbyterian Board of Publication, 27.

Claims against decedent's estates for services ren-
dered during the decedent's life, resting on parol evi-
dence of declarations by decedent that he would
remunerate the claimant at his death, are dangerous,
and not to be favored by the Courts. Pollock v. Ray,
59.

| DECEDENTS' ESTATES—Continued.
fault on his part, is not entitled to the exemption
provided by the Act of 1851. (0. C.) Coates's Estate,
367.

Where a widow elects to retain $300 in land, she is
entitled to have it set apart to her, unless the partition
will work irreparable damage to the rest of the estate.
(O. C.) Wallace's Estate, 503.

A widow is not entitled to recover $300 out of the
proceeds of her deceased husband's real estate, without
a previous appraisement, as provided by the Act of 14
April, 1851, and 9 April, 1849. Nixon's Appeal, 496.

What not sufficient evidence to sustain a contract to
pay board. (0. C.) Williamson's Estate, 576.

Evidence of the value of a decedent's estate is not
admissible for the purpose of fixing a standard by
which the jury might estimate the damage for the
breach of contract. Ib.

Liability of personalty for debts secured by
mortgage. The purchase of real estate "under and
subject to the payment" of a mortgage, without other
evidence of an assumption of payment, does not make
the personal estate of the purchaser liable after his
decease to the payment of the mortgage. Moore's Ap-
peal, 474. See MORTGAGE.

Where the holder of a decedent's bond secured by a
mortgage of real estate, which was sold by the decedent
during his life under and subject to the payment of
the mortgage, seeks payment of his bond out of the
personal estate of the obligor, he will first be compelled
to exhaust his remedies on the mortgage before he can
claim in the distribution of the estate. (O. C.) Gould's
Estate, 562.

Funeral expenses. Payment of funeral expenses
of a decedent by a beneficial society, extinguishes the
debt against the estate, and the administrator is not
entitled to claim credit for the same in his account.
Nixon's Appeal, 496.

Lien of debts on land. The Act of 22 January,
1834, limiting the lien of a decedent's debts upon his
lands, does not apply to an unrecorded mortgage
which is a special pledge of the land described in it,
and though unrecorded is valid against the mortgagor
and his heirs. McLaughlin v. Ihmsen, 198.

Judgment for want of an affidavit of defence cannot
be entered upon a scire facias to continue the lien of a
judgment against the widow and heirs of a decedent.
(C. P.) Stadelman v. Penna. Co., 134.

A sale of real estate for the payment of debts is valid,
though made more than five years after his death, if
the order be made before the expiration of that time.
(0. C.) Bowker's Estate, 254.

Where, after an account filed and confirmed, a
balance is shown to be due to an executor or adminis-
trator which there are no personal assets to meet, the
Orphans' Court has jurisdiction to order a sale of the
realty, even though the account be not final, and the
balance due be composed of commissions. Ib.

A power to sell real estate, given by a testator to
executors for the purpose of distributing the proceeds
among the objects of his bounty, belongs to them vir-
tute officii, and may be exercised by an administrator
d. b. n. c. t. a. Jackman v. Delafield, 9.

See ARTICLE ON LIEN OF DECEDENTS' DEBTS, 545.
Widow's claim. A widow, who at the time of her
husband's death is living separate from him, without

(0. C.) Leow's Estate, 333.

An administrator is not entitled to credits for pay-
ments made out of the decedent's estate, unless there
is some evidence of the validity of the claims. Re-
ceipted bills without proof of the signature of their
signers, are not such evidence. (0. C.) Williamson's
Estate, 452, 471.

After one account of executors has been filed and
settled, the right of creditors to a second account is
within the discretion of the Court. (O. C.) Seeger's
Estate, 369; Caldwell's Estate, 370.

An administrator who has paid over money to a dis-
tributee in accordance with a decree of the Orphans'
Court, will be protected against loss by reason of a
subsequent opening and change of the decree. Charl-
ton's Appeal, 456.

This protection will be afforded to him irrespective
of whether the payments were made before or after the
decree. Ib.

Marshalling of assets. The devisee of specific
lands is entitled to have the assets of an estate so mar-
shalled, in a case where a widow elects to take against
the will of her husband, that the widow's portion
shall be set apart out of the residuary estate, and that
the specific devise shall be untouched. Gallagher's
Appeal, 187.

Distribution. In order to deprive a husband of
his distributive share in his wife's estate, failure to
provide for her must combine with drunkenness. (0.
C.) Cremer's Estate, 240.

Counsel fees. An executor is not entitled to an
allowance for counsel fees paid in litigation brought
on by his own neglect or ignorance. The estate is only
chargeable with such a sum as, taking into considera-
tion the value of the estate, and the ordinary labor
and trouble necessary for its expeditious and careful
settlement, would be a fair compensation to the counsel
employed. (0. C.) Leow's Estate, 333.

Commissions. An executor who fails to perform
his duty, forfeits all right to commissions. Ib.

An executor is entitled to have real estate of his
testator sold to pay his commissions, if there is a de-
ficiency of personal estate. (O. C.) Bowker's Estate,
254.

Under what circumstances a petition for a bill of
review will be refused. (O. C.) John Given's Estate,
434.

An administrator whose account has been confirmed
has no standing to appeal from a decree distributing
the balance in his hands in reference to this method of
such distribution. Gallagher's Appeal, 457.

See ESCHEAT, INTESTATES, ORPHANS' COURT, PRACTICE,
WILLS.

DEED. The recording Act of March 18, 1779, pro-
tects the subsequent purchasers of a second purchaser

DEED-Continued.

against the unrecorded deed of a first purchaser in the
absence of notice, actual or constructive, to such subse-
quent purchaser. Good v. Bausman, 93.

A mortgagee is a purchaser within the protection of
the recording Acts. Earnest v. Cuthbertson, 199.

The rule that a deed or grant must be construed
most strongly against the grantor applies with especial
force to a reservation or restriction in a deed, whereby
there is a withholding of something from the grant.
Klaer v. Ridgway, 113.

DEMURRER. See PLEAding.

DEVISE. Right of specific devisee to have assets
marshalled in his favor against widow. See DECE-
DENTS' ESTATES. Gallagher's Appeal, 187.

Lapsed Devise. See WILL.

DIVORCE. A decree of divorce will be vacated,
which was obtained without personal service upon a
respondent who was in the jurisdiction of the Court,
and had no knowledge of the proceeding, but was led
to believe that the proceedings had been abandoned.
(C. P.) Peterson v. Peterson, 449.

Amendment of libel, when allowed. See AMEND-
MENT. Matthews v. Matthews, 147.

EQUITY-Continued.

To restrain sheriff's sale, which would create a cloud
on title, when granted. Houston, Smith & Co.'s Ap-
peal, 162.

To restrain action at law, when granted. (C. P.)
Rothenhausler v. Rothenhausler, 560.

Jurisdiction in matters of account. (C. P.) Eichart
v. Grayson, 298.

EQUITY PRACTICE. Bill of discovery in aid
of detence to action at law. Right of plaintiff to com-
pel the defendant to permit an inspection of books and
papers, alleged to be material to the cause. (C. P.)
Reed v. Stevenson, 173.

A master in chancery cannot refuse to proceed until
his fees are paid. If he does, the Court will discharge
him. (C. P.) Huddy v. Caldwell, 448.

The failure of a complainant to take any testimony for
three months after the filing of his bill, subjects him
to the risk of having his case heard without evidence
to support it, but the Court has no authority under
the circumstances to dismiss the bill for want of prose-
cution without a hearing. (U. S. C. C.). Sargent v.
First National Bank, 371.

DOWER. See HUSBAND AND WIFE.

DYING WITHOUT ISSUE. When definite
failure of imported. See WILL. Campbell v. Inger-
soll, 125.

EASEMENT. Rights of drainage between upper
and lower lands considered. Gordon v. R. R., 405.

EJECTMENT. A defendant in ejectment cannot
be compelled to enter security for damages and costs
under the Act of June 13, 1836, § 85. (C. P.) Young
v. Cooper, 206.

A defendant in ejectment has until the second term
to enter his defence, and judgment cannot be taken
against him for want of a plea before that time, al-
though an appearance be entered. Ib.

The dimensions of a survey cannot be controlled or
enlarged by marks found upon an adjoining junior
survey, even though the lines of the earlier survey
have been adopted in the junior, but such marks
may be evidence to be submitted to the jury on the
question of the original location of the lines of the
earlier survey. Clement v. Northumberland Coal Co.,
46.

On the trial of an action of ejectment the Court pro-
perly received evidence tending to prove that a me-
chanic's lien, under which the defendants claimed
title, was invalid, not having been filed within the
statutory period. Dalzell v. Patterson, 493.

ELECTION LAW. A petition, contesting an
election, must be filed within thirty days after the day
of the election, not from the time of counting the votes.
(C. P.) In re McManemin, 460.

See CORPORATIONS.
EMINENT DOMAIN. See DAMAGES, RAILROAD,
ROADS, HIGHWAYS AND BRidges.

EQUITY. The administration of equity, through
common law forms, is settled in the jurisprudence of
this State. Woodward v. Carson, 396.

Injunction, to restrain nuisance, when granted.
Somers's Appeal, 441.

To restrain removal of foundation wall, when
granted. (C. P.) Penna. Co. v. Lynch, 446.

To restrain proceedings before magistrate by pur-
chaser at sheriff's sale to recover possession, when re-
fused. (C. P.) Lynch v. Jennings, 500.

other parts of the State. Musser v. Durborrow, 209.
The several Courts of Common Pleas have express
power under the Acts of 14 February, 1857, and 4 May,
1864, to establish for themselves rules of practice and
a tariff of fees and costs in equity cases.

Ib.

The equity rules adopted by the Supreme Court in
1865 govern in the several Courts of the State. Ib.
See SUBROGATION.

ERRORS AND APPEALS. The Act of 24
March, 1877, limiting the time of taking out a writ of
error or certiorari in capital cases is not unconstitu-
tional. Sayres v. Commonwealth, 565.

An assignee for the benefit of creditors has no
standing to appeal from a decree distributing among
the creditors the balance shown by his account. Sing-
master's Appeal, 14..

Nor an administrator from a decree distributing the
assets of his decedent's estates among them claiming
to be entitled thereto. Gallagher's Appeal, 457.

A decree upon a report of road jurors, setting aside
so much of an award as was given to certain claimants
upon the ground that the railroad company had con-
cluded to alter the line of their road so as not to pass
through the land of the claimant, is a final judgment,
from which an appeal can be taken. Beale v. R. R., 137.

The recalling of a witness is a matter within the
discretion of the Court below, and not the subject of a
writ of error. Vandike v. Townsend, 55.

The admission of evidence not strictly rebutting is
in the discretion of the Court, and not reviewable upon
a writ of error, unless there is a gross abuse of the dis-
cretion. Farmers' Ins. Co. v. Bair, 40.

A wife, who claimed that a mortgage had been frand-
ulently given by her husband with an intent to defeat
her dower, has no standing to take a writ of error to
an order of the Court below refusing to set aside a judg-
ment entered on a scire facias on the mortgage, though
she might have had an equitable right to have the
judgment opened. McClurg v. Schwartz, 361.

Whilst it is error not to allow a leading question
where a party has a right to put it, the improper al-
lowance of a leading question is no ground for reversal.
Farmers' Fire Ins. Co. v Bair, 40.

A plaintiff in error must show by the record how the
evidence, the rejection of which is assigned for error,
became material. Wacker v. Straub, 381.

ERRORS AND APPEALS-Continued.

The failure of a judge to reduce to writing his
answers to points presented for charge, as prescribed
by the Act of 24 March, 1877, is not the subject of a
writ of error if the points were properly answered in
the general charge. Scheuing v. Yard, 454.

Where it is assigned for error, that the Court below
refused to charge the jury in accordance with a point
presented, the Supreme Court will assume that the
jury would have found the facts as hypothetically stated
in the point. King v. Thompson, 241.

When the Supreme Court is asked to review the find-
ing of facts of the Orphans' Court, it is necessary that
the entire testimony presented in that Court should be
brought up. Appeal of Presbyterian Board, 27.

Although bail in error is not perfected within ten
days after exception thereto, until the writ of error is
non prossed and the record returned, execution cannot
issue on the judgment below. (C. P.) Greenough v.
Kase, 254.

The pendency of a writ of error is no bar to a scire
facias to revive a judgment. (C. P.) Building Asso-
ciation v. Byrne, 253.

A writ of error is no supersedeas to a vend. ex. when
the property has been levied on and condemned under
a fi. fa. issued prior to the teste of the writ of error.
Ib.

The Supreme Court will not review the finding of
facts by an auditor where the evidence upon which his
conclusions were reached is not brought up with the
record. Singmaster's Appeal, 14.

A bill of exceptions signed after the term at which
the judgment was rendered (save under very extra-
ordinary circumstances), without the consent of the
parties, or an express order of the Court to that effect
made during the term, will not be considered part of
the record in the Supreme Court of the United States
on writ of error. (U. S. S. C.) Jones v. Grover Ma-
chine Co., 578.

ESCHEAT. When administration upon the es-
tate of one dying without heirs is granted before an
inquest, the administrator is entitled to a year in which
to settle the estate, and the Commonwealth must pre-
sent her claim in the Orphans' Court as the next of
kin. (C. P.) Commonwealth v. Weart, 237.

Where distribution of a decedent's estate has been
made by the Orphans' Court, the Commonwealth is
barred from levying upon any property as belonging
to the decedent under proceedings for an escheat of his
estate. (C. P.) Commonwealth v. Palmer, 486.

The Commonwealth must assert her right to an
escheat within twenty-one years after the death of the
persons whose estate it is sought to recover. (C. P.)
Commonwealth v. Naile, 191.

Property in the hands of a trustee cannot be es-
cheated. Ib.

ESTOPPEL. What sufficient evidence of an es-
toppel in pais. Scott v. Strawn, 132.

Declarations of a married woman that she has no
defence to a judgment, cannot estop her from afterwards
disputing the validity of that judgment upon the
ground of her coverture. Quinn's Appeal, 118.

See RES ADJUDICATA. Otterson v. Gallagher, 555.
EVIDENCE. An instrument not duly stamped is
not admissible in evidence. (C. P.) Andress v.
Thomas, 414.

Corroborating testimony to prove particular events
themselves unimportant in a chain showing a deep con-
spiracy, is admissible. Duffy v. Commonwealth, 311.
Although the Commonwealth may not impeach the
general credibility of a witness called by it, it may
show that a witness was drunk at the time concerning
VOL. VI.-38

EVIDENCE-Continued.

which he attempts to testify, for the purpose of show-
ing that his recollection of events was defective.
Ib.
Whether a witness may be recalled in rebuttal is a
matter within the discretion of the judge trying the
case. Vandike v. Townsend, 55.

The order of proof and the permission of leading
questions is a matter within the discretion of the Court,
but the refusal to allow a question upon the ground
that it is leading is the subject of a writ of error.
Farmers' Insurance Co. v. Bair, 40.

When a witness is called to contradict a previous
witness, the correct practice is to put the question to
him in the same language in which it has been put to
the witness sought to be contradicted. Ib.

Where part of a conversation between plaintiff and
defendant has been brought out by cross-examination
of the plaintiff, the latter is entitled to have the whole
conversation brought in. Walsh v. Porterfield, 149.

The construction of a writing is for the Court, but the
proper method of settling such construction is by re-
questing the Court to charge upon its legal effect, and
not by excepting to the competency of the writing as
an instrument of evidence. Snyder v. Armstrong, 412.

It is the province of the Court to expound the mean-
ing of a writing, but not of words uttered which have
no recognized legal effect. Maynes v. Atwater, 535.

Declarations made prior to a murder in the presence
of a prisoner charged as accessory, which tend to show
a conspiracy in which the prisoner was a party, are ad-
missible without express evidence of assent on the part
of the prisoner. So, also, evidence of similar declara-
tions after the murder. Duffy v. Commonwealth, 311.

Admissions made out of Court by an attorney-at-law
do not bind the client unless there be express evidence
of authority to make the admissions. Snyder v. Arm-
strong, 412.

Declarations made by a husband after the entry of
judgment against him that certain property is owned
by his wife, are inadmissible in a contest between the
wife and his creditors, and though not objected to
when offered in evidence should be withdrawn by the
Court from the consideration of the jury. Conley v.
Bentley, 338.

Declarations made by an agent are not binding upon
the principal unless made in the transaction of the
particular business of the agency as part of the res
gestæ. Robinson v. Dale, 166.

The declarations of a husband are inadmissible to
bind the wife unless he is shown to have been in the
actual transaction of business as her agent at the time
of making them. Ib.

Declarations of a wife are not admissible in disproof
of a claim of her husband. (O. C.) Williamson's Es-
tate, 576.

Where a party puts in evidence a paper purporting
to be a notarial copy of a power of attorney, he is
estopped from denying that it is a true copy of a genu-
ine power. (C. P.) Moelling v. Lehigh Navigation
Co., 575.

In an action for libel against the publishers of a
newspaper, the plaintiff cannot offer secondary evi-
dence of the libellous article without giving valid rea-
son for the non-production of the newspaper itself.
Barr v. Moore, 273.

The rule excluding conversations which took place
not in the presence of the party to be affected thereby
does not apply to proceedings in rem against goods
alleged to have been smuggled. (U. S. C. C.) Bean v.
United States, 542.

Parol evidence to vary writing. Evidence of a
conversation between the parties two months before

EVIDENCE-Continued.

the execution of a written assignment which is free
from ambiguity cannot be admitted to affect the terms
of the instrument. Caley v. Hoopes, 327.

In an action upon a lease evidence that the lessee
had taken the premises upon an advertisement that
they were adapted for and well known as a summer
boarding-place, which was untrue, is not sufficient to
bar recovery for rent. Lockwood v. McNamara, 367.
What not sufficient evidence of a parol agreement
to overcome the effect of the covenant implied in a
conveyance from the use of the words "grant, bargain,
sell," etc. Shaffer v. Greer, 323.

Parol evidence is admissible to vary the legal effect
in a conveyance of the words "under and subject" to
the payment of a certain mortgage. Stokes v. Wil-
liams, 473. Samuel v. Peyton, 476.

Parol evidence is admissible to show that the lien of
a judgment entered upon a bond and warrant of at-
torney by agreement of the parties was to be restricted
to certain specific real estate. (C. P.) Baillie v. Kess-
ler, 527.

Parol evidence of a subsequent agreement made upon
sufficient consideration is admissible to vary the effect
of a contract under seal. Wilgus v. Whitehead, 537. |
Criminal evidence. Evidence of a subsequent
distinct criminal act connected in character and pur-
pose with the offence charged, is admissible at the trial
of an indictment for the principal offence. Kramer v.
Commonwealth, 185.

In a criminal conspiracy the members of which are
also members of the same criminal organization, the
declarations of a fellow member and co-conspirator are
evidence against all the parties to the conspiracy.
Donnelly v. Commonwealth, 104.

Evidence that the deceased had a general reputation
for bad temper, and was of a brutal and dangerous dis-
position, is admissible to prove that a homicide was
committed in self-defence. (Q. S.) Commonwealth v.
Richmond, 431.

What evidence is admissible to prove a motive for a
murder. See CRIMINAL LAW. Sayres v. Commonwealth,
565.

What evidence is admissible to prove or rebut the
proof of insanity. See CRIMINAL LAW. Ib.

Competency of witness. The Acts of April 3,
1872, and March 24, 1877, do not render the wife a
competent witness for her husband in criminal cases.
Gibson v. Commonwealth, 35.

Commission to take testimony. Slight infor-
malities in the execution of a commission will not ren-
der it invalid. (O.C.) Neill's Estate, 256.

The presence of an attorney for the opposing party
will not invalidate the testimony taken under a com-
mission. (C. P.) Loewenstein v. Biernbaum, 452.

Other matters. In an attachment execution the
record of a judgment of the defendant against the gar-
nishee in another action is competent evidence for the
plaintiff, although there is a writ of error pending
thereto. Woodward v. Carson, 396.

Questions as to the means and extent of witnesses'
knowledge are proper in cross-examination, though
not in an examination in chief. Thompson v. Boyle,
85.

It is error to admit evidence of the value of a dece-
dent's estate in an action against it for services ren-
dered the decedent in his lifetime, for the purpose of
fixing the value of the services. Pollock v. Ray, 59.

Evidence is not admissible to show that the directors
of a railroad in fixing its route have not exercised a
wise discretion in the selection. Struthers v. R. R. Co.,
161.

EXECUTION. A writ of error is not a superse-
deas to a vend. ex., when the property has been levied
on and condemned under a fi. fa. issued prior to the
teste of the writ of error. (C. P.) Building Asso. v.
Byrne, 254.

A writ of error is a supersedeas to an execution, al-
though bail in error is not perfected within ten days
after exception, unless the writ of error is non-prossed.
(C. P.) Greenough v. Kase, 254.

Where the plaintiff waives the approval of the Court
for bail for stay, such approval is not requisite to the
validity of the bond. (C. P.) Walker v. Nester, 541.
The exemption laws of the State cannot be taken ad-
vantage of by a non-resident debtor. (C. P.) Snow
v. Dill, 330.

Exemption. Where there is a sale under a mort-
gage, containing a waiver of exemption, the defendant
is not barred from asserting a claim to exemption
against junior lien creditors. Quinn's Appeal, 118.

The waiver of exemption on an execution, which is
stayed, does not enure to the benefit of other execution
creditors, whose writs are at the same time in the hands
of the sheriff. Bowman v. Tagg, 220.

Where a debtor waives exemption, but his wife claims
the articles levied upon, which after an interpleader
are determined to be the husband's, and seized as his
upon an execution issued on a judgment on the inter-
pleader bond, in which the husband was a co-obligor,
he cannot claim exemption. (C. P.) Lorenz v. Wright,
539.

When an inquisition is set aside by the Court for an
irregularity, the sheriff may summon another jury, and
hold a second inquest under the same writ, but he can-
not in consequence thereof have a new appraisement
of the property under a claim for an exemption. (C. P.)
Geisinger v. Applebach, 557.

Interpleader. A feme sole trader may give her
own bond upon an interpleader on goods claimed by
her husband. (C. P.) Hahs v. Schmeyer, 271.

When claimant will not be permitted to give his own
bond. (C. P.) Baily v. Vehmeier, 271.
When rule as to time for filing bond and narr. not
enforced. Hallowell v. Schnitzer, 469.

The amount of an interpleader bond depends on the
value of the articles taken in execution. (C. P.)
Commonwealth v. Chapman, 15.

A non-suit is a final determination of an interpleader
issue, and entitles the obligee to bring suit against the
surety on the interpleader bond. (C. P.) Brenizer
v. Cahill, 147.

A non-suit should not be granted in an interpleader,
unless giving to the plaintiff the benefit of every infer-
ence of fact, he is not entitled to a verdict. Maynes v.
Atwater, 535.

Execution on transcript of justice. An execu-
tlon against personal property cannot be issued by the
Common Pleas on a transcript from a justice of the
peace. (C. P.) Bradley v. Ward, 366.

Lien of fi. fa. On personalty how lost, what suffi-
cient evidence of an abandonment of levy. Messimer
v. Ebersole, 200.

A senior judgment creditor who issues a fi. fa., and
levies upon personal property, does not thereby satisfy
his debt, nor postpone his lien upon the debtor's land
to that of junior execution creditors. Burke, Thomas
& Co.'s Appeal, 572.

An agreement by execution creditors to permit goods
levied upon to be sold by an assignee for the benefit of
creditors, is not of itself an abandonment of a levy.
Kent's Appeal, 262.

A testatum fi. fa. may issue upon a return of nulla
bona without the filing of a suggestion, as provided by