by the decedent to any person in the state of New York, and no ancillary administration in that state; nor was there any collateral inheritance or succession tax paid upon the estate of Jesse Lines, or any part thereof, in that state, nor any such return charged against the same, or paid to the authorities of said state upon any property mentioned in or distributed under said trust deed. The securities which were distributed to the beneficiaries were appraised at over $130,000. STERRETT, C. J. On February 22, | Minnesota. There were no debts owing 1890, Jesse Lines died in the city of Easton, Pa., where he had resided for over 30 years prior thereto. While on a visit to New York, in May, 1887, he executed and delivered to the Union Trust Company, a corporation organized under the laws of New York, and doing business in that state, a deed of trust of 118 mortgage bonds, of $1,000 each, issued by a Missouri railroad corporation, and 281 shares capital stock of the Taylor Iron Works, a New Jersey corporation, doing business therein. These securities were then delivered, and, on the books of the respective -corporations, transferred to “The Union | Trust Company of New York, in trust for Jesse Lines and others." According to the provisions of the deed, said trustee was to hold the securities, collect the interest and income thereof, and pay the same to the said Jesse Lines during his natural life, and, upon his decease, to divide said bonds and stock and transfer one half thereof to certain of his nephews and nieces, and the residue to his putative son, as specified in said trust. The trust deed contains a clanse in which the said Jesse Lines, as first party thereto, reserves to himself "the right and power, by an instrument in writing, to be delivered to the second party, to alter, change, modify, or revoke all disposition and direction as to transfer and dispositions made, and to be made, of said property -after the decease of first party. But it does not appear that the right thus reserved was ever exercised. The trustee collected and paid over to Mr. Lines the income of the trust securities during his life, and, after his decease, divided and distributed the corpus of the trust, consisting of said securities, etc., to the beneficiaries entitled thereto, according to the provisions of the deed. At the time said trust was created, and thence until his decease, Mr. Lines was a citizen of Pennsylvania, domiciled therein at the city of Easton. During same time he had a wife, who survived him, and died. But neither then nor at the time of his decease had he any child or children born in lawful wed. lock, nor any descendent of any such child or children, nor father or mother. This proceeding was instituted by the register of wills of Northampton county for the purpose of enforcing payment of collateral inheritance tax, under the law of this state, on the bonds and stock of which Mr. Lines was the beneficial owner up to the time of his death, and which, upon that event, passed to said beneficiaries by virtue of said trust, which, as to them, was intended to and did take effect, in enjoyment, immediately after his decease, and not before. It was admitted that none of the beneficiaries under said deed resided in the state of New York at the date of its execution, uor at any time since, except Jesse T. Lines, who, for a short time subsequent to the death of Jesse Lines, resided in Brooklyn, N. Y. All said beneficiaries lived in Pennsylvania, except Mary E. Perkins, Harriet Hill, and Eva L. Lines, who at the time said trust was created, and at the date of Jesse Lines' death, lived in the state of The appeal from valuation fixed by the register's appraiser was heard and disposed of by the learned president of the thirty-first district, who, after fully stating all the material facts, including those outlined above, and exhaustively considering the questions of law arising thereon, held that the securities referred to were subject to collateral inheritance tax in the bands of said beneficiaries; and he accordingly dismissed the appeal, and entered the decree from which this appeal was taken. In view of the undisputed facts, it is strange that any question should have been seriously raised either as to the right of the commonwealth to the tax on the securities or the liability of the beneficiaries to pay their respective proportions thereof. Mr. Lines was not only the beneficial owner of the securities prior to and at the time of his decease, but, under the reserved power of modification, revocation, etc., he had absolute control of the disposition to be made of the securities upon his decease. At any time prior thereto, he could have modified or revoked the trust in favor of the beneficiaries named in the deed. It is true the legal title to the securities was in the trust company; but aside from mere compensation for its services, as custodian of the property, the company had no beneficial interest therein. In any proper sense of the term, the securities were the "personal property" of Mr. Lines. They were his to enjoy during his lifetime, and his to dispose of, in any manner he saw fit, at any time prior to his decease. He chose to leave the trust in favor of the beneficiaries unaltered and unrevoked; and, as he intended, it took effect, in enjoyment, immediately after his decease. Moreover, the securities were that kind of personal property the situs of which follows the owner. As was said in Orcutt's Appeal, 97 Pa. St. 179, the general rule is that the situs of personal property follows the owner, but, for particular purposes, some species of personal property may have a situs distinct from the legal one; but that in question is not within any of the recognized exceptions to the general rule. That was clearly shown by the learned judge who presided specially at the hearing in the court below, as may be seen by reference to his clear and convincing opinion. The manifest purpose of our collateral inheritance tax law is to subject property, limited by deed in the manner stated in the statute, to taxation, because it is still substantially the property of the grantor, and does not actually pass, nor is it intended to pass, to the collateral benefici aries until his death; and hence it is essentially similar in that respect to a dev. olution of property by testacy or intestacy upon the death of the owner. That is illustrated by several of our cases, among which are Reish v. Com., 106 Pa. St. 521; Seibert's Appeal, 110 Pa. St. 329, 1 Atl. Rep. 346; Du Bois' Appeal, 121 Pa. St. 368, 15 Atl. Rep. 641. In the former it was held that the right of the commonwealth to the tax was not defeated by a conveyance or transfer of title to the property during the lifetime of the owner, nor by possession taken under such conveyance, if the enjoyment of the property conveyed is not intended to take effect until the death of the grantor. In Du Bois' Appeal, supra, speaking of the deed made by the grantor, and possession taken by the grantee thereunder, etc., it is said: "The naked legal title acquired by the grantee was the merest shadow. The grantor held a firm grasp on the entire substance, and he retained it as long as he lived. In view of all this, it is idle to contend that, in an proper or statutory sense of the word 'enjoyment,' the conveyance in question took effect, or was intended to take effect, in enjoyment prior to the death of John Dubois." It follows from what has been said that the conclusions reached by the court below on all the controlling questions in the case are correct, and the decree based upon the principles thus established should not be disturbed. The learned judge was clearly correct in saying, as recited in the second specification: "It must be regarded that Jesse Lines, not the trust company, owned the stocks and bonds. Beyond a doubt, the situs of the property, for the purpose of taxation, including the imposition of collateral inheritance tax, was in Pennsylvania." There appears to be no error in either of the matters referred to in the remaining specifications. In view of what has been already said in the opinion of the court below and here, neither of them requires special consideration. Decree affirmed, and appeal dismissed, with costs to be paid by appellants. BRADLY v. POTTS. (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. May 22, 1893.) VENDOR AND PURCHASER-FRAUD-PLEADING. 1. A rule absolute for a more specific statement, on the ground that the statement does not set forth a good cause of action, is er roneous, as the proper and only way to raise that question is by demurrer. 2. In an action for fraud, a statement setting out an agreement by defendant to sell plaintiff a certain farm, with an averment that the farm includes certain land, the subject of controversy; that plaintiff, on asking for the title papers, in order to draw a deed under the agreement, was furnished by defendant with a deed purporting to convey to defendant's wife the land in the agreement; that, following the description in said deed. a conveyance was prepared by plaintiff, executed by defendant and wife, and the purchase money paid; that subsequently plaintiff, on receiving possession, learned that the deed did not convey the whole of the farm, but omitted an important part thereof, which furnished access to a public road; and that defendant, on being requested to fulfill his agreement by conveyance of this part of the farm, refused to do so, though offered the consideration,-is sufficient, it not being necessary that fraud should be alleged in express terms if the facts would support an inference of fraud. Appeal from court of common pleas, Philadelphia county. Action by William Bradly, to the use of Joseph Costello, against Hiram Potts. From an order making absolute a rule for a more specific statement, plaintiff appeals. Reversed. Plaintiff's statement was as follows: "(1) The plaintiffs aver that the defendant, Hiram Potts, on the 24th day of July, A. D. 1891, entered into a certain written agreement with the plaintiff, of which a full and correct copy is as follows: town ""This agreement, made the 25th day of July, A. D. one thousand eight hundred and ninety-one, between Hiram Potts, merchant, of the city of Philadelphia, of the first part, and William Bradly, attor ney, of the said city, of the second part, witnesseth, that the said party of the first part, for the consideration hereinafter mentioned, doth hereby, for himself, his heirs, executors, and administrators, covenant, promise, and agree with the said party of the second part, his heirs and assigns, that he, the said party of the first part, shall and will, on or before the 25th day of October, 1891, at the proper cost and charges of the said William Bradly, Atty., his heirs and assigns, by a good and sufficient deed of conveyance, doth grant, convey, and assure, unto the said party of the second part, his heirs and assigns, all that certain farm of land situate in Springfield and Cheltenham ships, Montgomery county, Pennsylvania, known as the "Hiram Potts Farm," and fronting on Willow Grove avenue, containing about sixty-two acres, together with all and singular the buildings and other improvements and appurtenances thereunto belonging. And the said party of the second part, for himself, his heirs, executors, and administrators, doth hereby covenant, promise, and agree with the said party of the first part, his heirs and assigns, that he, the said party of the second part, shall and will well and truly pay unto the said party of the first part, his heirs and assigns, the sum of five thousand dollars within three months from date, and the further sum of five thousand dollars upon the delivery of deed and a bond and mortgage for the balance of the consideration secured upon the property; full price to be one thousand dollars per acre; time of mortgage to be within three years, at five per cent. interest; property to be clear of incumbrance, except above purchase-money mortgage; the party of the first part to release any portion of the property from the lien of mortgage upon payment of two thonsand dollars per acre by the party of the second part; any crops in the ground to be paid for by party of second part by appraisemeut. In witness whereof, the said parties to these presents have hereunto set their hands and seals, this twenty-fifth day of July, one thousand eight bundred and ninety-one. [Seal.] Hiram Potts. [Seal.] Wm. Bradly, Atty. Sealed and delivered in the presence of William Hamilton, Horace H. Hoffman.' "Rec'd Phila., October twenty-fourth, 1891, from Win. Bradly, Atty, five thousand dollars, being the amount to be paid on or before the 25th inst., as per agreement, for the purchase of the 59 acres and 126 perches in Springfield & Cheltenham Twp., Monty. Co., Pa. $5,000.00. Hiram Potts.' 66 6 'Philadelphia-ss.: Be it remembered that on the sixth day of November, A. D. 1891, before me, the subscriber, notury public for the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, residing in the city of Philadelphia, personally appeared William Hamilton, of Springfield township, Montgomery county, Pennsylvania, farmer, who, being sworn according to law, deposes and says that he did see Hiram Potts sign and seal, and as his act and deed deliver, the within agreement for the sale of the therein described real estate, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned; and that he did also see Horace H. Hoffman subscribe his name thereunto, as the other witness of such sealing and delivery, and that the name of this deponent thereunto set and subscribed as a witness is of this deponent's own proper hand writing. William Hamilton. Sworn and subscribed to before me, the day and year aforesaid. Alfred J. Wilkinson, Notary Public. "Montgomery County-ss.: Recorded in the office for recording deeds, etc., in and for said county, in Deed Book No. 363, p. 218, etc. Witness my hand and seal of office, this seventh day of November, 1891. Geo. W. Pawling, Recorder. Per A. J. Mulvey.' “(2) In and by the said contract the defendant represented himself to be the owner of a certain farm therein described, and in and by the said contract he contracted to convey the whole of the said farm to the plaintiff upon the plaintiff's payment of the purchase money, at the rate of $1,000 per acre, on the terms therein set forth. The plaintiffs have lately had a survey and plan of the said farm made, and a copy of which is annexed hereto in blue print. The said Potts farm, as described in the said contract, is the whole of the space included within the lines BC, CE, EF, FGH, HIJ, and JA B, as shown on the plan. The line J A B is the front of the said farm on Willow Grove a venue, otherwise known as the 'Mermaid Road.' The said farın is bounded on its north side, B C, C E, and E F, by properties formerly of James Brooks and George Shriver, and now owned by Grace L. Sims, and it is bounded on the side F G H, and on the side HIJ, by the properties of other individuals, to wit, Megargee, Bisbing, and Fenton. The only roads upon the arm communicating with the public highways are, first, the road shown by the dotted lines immediately next to the northern boundary of the farm, B C, and also a road next to the boundary between C and E, connecting with a private road crossing the Brooks or Sims land, and thereby communicating with the highway known as the 'Church Road,' which highway is the northern boundary of the Sims tract. Access to the last-mentioned private road is of great value, for it is the only means of carrying drainage from the Potts farm to the said Church road. "(3) After the said contract had been made, and on or about the 2d of October, 1891, the plaintiffs discovered, from a statement to that effect made by the defendant to the plaintiff, that the defendant was not the owner of the said farm, but that the defendant's wife, Hannah K. Potts, was the owner of the said farm, and that the defendant had made the contract as her agent, and without disclosing the name of his principal; and the plaintiff William Bradly then requested the defend. ant to cause the said certain farm of land situate in Springfield and Cheltenham townships, Montgomery county, Pennsylvania, known as the 'Hiram Potts Farm,' and fronting on Willow Grove avenue, containing about sixty-two acres, together with all and singular the buildings and other improvements and appurtenances thereunto belonging, to be conveyed to Joseph Costello, in performance and satisfaction of the contract made by the defendant, and hereinbefore set out. “(4) On or about the 2d day of October, 1891, the plaintiff demanded from the defendant his title deeds of the said Hiram Potts farm, in order that the deed of conveyance to the plaintiff might be drawn, and the defendant then handed to the plaintiff a certain deed, dated the 1st day of April, 1871, and recorded in the office for recording of deeds, etc., in and for Montgomery county, at Norristown, Pa., in Deed Book No. 191, p. 287, etc., wherein Joseph Yeakel and others were the grantors, and Hannah K. Potts, the wife of the defendant, was the grantee, and whereby there was conveyed to the said Hannah K. Potts, in fee, 'all that messuage and farm or tract of land situate in the townships of Cheltenham and Springfield, in the county of Montgomery and state of Pennsylvania, bounded and described as follows: Beginning at a point in the Mermaid road, in Cheltenham township, one perch and forty-eight hundredths of a perch from a poplar tree in a corner of Sophia Fenton's and other lands of Hustons' estate; thence, on and along the said Mermaid road, north, nineteen degrees and ten minutes east, sixty-four and seventy-six hundredths perches, to another point in said road, a corner of this and other lands now or late of Hustons and lands of John Funk thence north, forty-eight degrees and five minutes west, across the township line, into Springfield township, west sixty and sixteen hundredths perches, to a stone at another corner; thence north, thirty degrees and ten minutes east, seven and fifty-six hundredths perches, to another stone set for a corner in George Shriver's land; thence north, forty-seven degrees and forty-five minutes west, fiftytive and sixteen hundredths perches, to a stake, a corner of Shriver's and Sylvester Megargee's land; thence south, forty-three degrees west, seventy-eight and ninetyfour hundredths perches, to a stone set for a corner in Robert Bishing's and said Megargee's land; thence south, forty-eight degrees and three minutes east, ninety and ninety-two hundredths perches by land of Robert Bisbing, to a corner of Bisbing's and Fenton's land, on the township line of Cheltenham and Springfield townships; thence, along Sophia Fenton's land, south, sixty-one degrees and ten minutes east, fifty-four and three hundredths perches, to the place of beginning,-containing fifty-nine acres and one hundred and twenty-six perches of land, more or less.' (5) The plaintiff, believing that the said deed from Joseph Yeakel and others contained the full description of the whole of the said the Hiram Potts farm, had the description in the deed to be executed by the defendant and his wife in fulfillment of the defendant's said contract drawn from the said Yeakel deed; and on or about the 28th day of October, 1891, the defendant and bis said wife executed and delivered to the equitable plaintiff, Joseph Costello, a deed dated the 17th day of October, 1891, and recorded in the office for the recording of deeds in and for Montgomery county, in Deed Book No. 363, p. 111, conveying to the plaintiff the therein described land, which was the same tract of land described in the Yeakel deed, so as aforesaid designated by the defendant as the title deed of the said the Hiram Potts farm. (6) The plaintiffs, believing that the said deed conveyed to Joseph Costello in fee all of the said the Hiram Potts farm, accepted the said deed when delivered, and the plaintiff Joseph Costello then executed and delivered to the defendant, Hiram Potts, and Hannah K. Potts, his wife, a certain purchase-money mortgage for $50,000, which mortgage is recorded in the offices for the recording of deeds in and for Montgomery county, in Deed Book No. 234, p. 186, etc., and the plaintiff Joseph Costello also paid to the defendant, for himself and his wife, the sum of $9,787.50 in cash, and on the 28th day of October, 1891, the defendant and his wife joined in an assignment of the said mortgage to John Rodgers, in trust to reassign the same to Hannah K. Potts, to secure to her, as and for her own property, $15,000, being part of the $50,000, and the residue thereof to Hiram Potts, which assignment of mortgage is recorded in the office aforesaid, in Mortgage Book No. 234, p. 188; and on the 29th day of Ocober, 1891, the said John Rodgers reassigned the said mortgage, as to $15,000 thereof, to Hannah K. Potts, as and for her own property, and as to the residue thereof to the defendant, Hiram Potts, which reassignment is recorded in the office aforesaid, in Mortgage Book No. 234, p. 190. "(7) The tract of ground conveyed by Hannah K. Potts, the wife of the defendant, to the plaintiffs, in and by the said deed, is shown on the annexed blue-print plan, and is included within the lines A D, DC, CE, EF, F G H, HIJ, and J A, thus not including an integral part of the Potts farm, which integral part is assessed for taxation as a part of the said the Hiram Potts farm, and is not separat<ed from the remaining portion of the said the Hiram Potts farm by any fence or dividing line, and also not including the two farm roads herein before referred to, and thus shutting off the present means of communication from the said farm with the Willow Grove avenue or Mermaid road, and with the Church road. After the execution and delivery of the said deed, and on or about the 31st day of October, 1891, the plaintiff Bradly met the defendant upon the said farm for the purpose of obtaining possession thereof from the defendant, and the plaintiff then and there, and for the first time, learned that the deed to the plaintiff Costello had not conveyed the whole of the said farm, but that the defendant's wife still held a part of the said farmi, being about two acres, adjoining the Brooks or Sims tract, title to which had been vested in her by a deed or deeds, which the defendant, when asked aforesaid for his title deeds, had failed to deliver to the plaintiffs. "(8) The plaintiff then and there demanded a conveyance to Juseph Costello of the portion of the Hiram Potts farm so unconveyed, to wit, 'all that certain lot or piece of ground situate in Cheltenham and Springfield townships, in the county of Montgomery, beginning at a point in the middle of Mermaid road, it being a corner of ground now of Joseph Costello; thence, along the ground of said Joseph Costello, across the township line into Springfield township, north, forty-seven degrees twenty minutes west, nine hundred and ninety-two and sixty-four hundredths feet, to a corner of this and other ground now of Joseph Costello; thence, along the same, north, thirty degrees forty-three minutes east, eighty-three and sixteen hundredths feet, to a corner of the ground late of James Brooks, and now of Grace L. Sims; thence, along the same, south, forty-seven degrees twenty minutes east, across township line, into Cheltenham township, nine hundred and ninetyseven and forty-six hundredths feet, to the middle of said Mermaid road; thence, along the same, south, nineteen degrees forty-three minutes west, thirty-eight and eighty-six hundredths feet, to the place of beginning,-containing about one and five-sixths acres, more or less.' The land thus described, unconveyed as aforesaid, is shown on the annexed blue-print plan as included within the lines A B, B C, C D, and D A, and is, as herein before stated, an integral part of the Hiram Potts farm, not separated from the rest of the said the Hiram Potts farm by any fence or other line of division, and assessed for taxation as a part of the said the Hiram Potts farm, and comprising all the roads and means of access from the said the Hiram Potts farm to the public highways. “(9) The plaintiffs have demanded from the defendant a conveyance of the last herein described land, and have offered to pay the defendant therefor, in cash, at the rate of $1,000 per acre, in accordance with the said contract; but the defendant has refused, and still does refuse, to make a conveyance of the said land, or to procure a conveyance of the said land to the plaintiffs. "(10) Before the plaintiffs had discov. of ered that the defendant had not conveyed | grounds of its action, nor has the appellee to them the whole of the said the Hiram Potts farm, the plaintiffs contracted to sell to John C. Sims, for the price of $2,000 per acre, seven and one-half acres ground adjoining the northern boundary of the said the Hiram Potts farm, and including the very ground which the defendant has failed and refused to convey as aforesaid, and, by reason of such failure and refusal on the part of the defendant, the plaintiffs have been unable to fulfill their said contract with the said John C. Sims, and have thereby lost the advantage of that sale, and have thereby subjected themselves to a liability in damages to the said John C. Sims. (11) The said land which the defendant contracted as aforesaid to convey to the plaintiffs, and which the defendant has failed and refused to convey to the plaintiffs, was at the time this action was brought, and is now, worth, in fair market value, more than $2,000 per acre; that is, more than double the contract price of the said land. 66 (12) The plaintiffs have been damaged by the defendant's breach of his said contract in the sum of $5,000, for the difference between the contract price and the market price at the date of action brought of the tract of land so as aforesaid contracted to be conveyed by the defendant to the plaintiff, but not conveyed; and in the further sum of $5,000, for expenditures incurred and to be incurred by the plaintiffs in making a road from the Willow Grove avenue or Mermaid road into the said the Potts farm; and in the further sum of $5,000, for the obstruction of the right of way over the Brooks or Sims farm, caused by the defendant's failure to convey the said tract of land which he had, as aforesaid, contracted to convey; and in the further sum of $7,500, for the loss of the profit on the sale contracted to be made to the said John C. Sims; and in the further sum of $5,000, for the plaintiffs' liability in damages to the said John C. Sims for the plaintiffs' breach of their contract with him; and also in the further sum of $1,000, for the costs of this action, and for this the plaintiffs bring their suit." George Stuart Patterson, John W. Jennings, and C. Stuart Patterson, for appellant. S. Edwin Megargee, for appellee. MITCHELL, J. This order must be reversed, as an irregular and unauthorized mode of reaching a result different from what it professes to do. In terms, it is a rule absolute for a more specific statement. Such a rule is apparently sanctioned by the rules of the court below, and may have its usefulness in its proper province; since what would have been a bill of particulars under the common counts may now, under the procedure act of 1887, be incorporated in the statement, and inay lack precision of names, dates, amounts, etc., as the bill of particulars might in the old practice. But such a rule cannot be made a substitute for a demurrer. We have unfortunately no opinion from the learned court below to show the v.26A.no.14-47 pointed out any lack of specificness or precision in the statement to justify the or der. On the contrary, we are informed that the objection is not really, as it professes to be, that the statement is not sufficiently specific, but that it does not set forth a good cause of action. The established and only way to raise that question is by demurrer. On that the rights of the parties can be adjudicated, and the case ended or ordered to proceed. Nothing is to be gained by the substitution of a nondescript order, unknown to the law, which has not the effect of a judgment for either party, but leaves the case suspended like Mahomet's coffin, so that the plaintiff cannot get on, and yet the defendant is not discharged. It is useless to say that plaintiff can amend his statement, for the amendment he is ordered to make is of a defect that does not exist. The names and dates and amounts in every averment are precise and specific. There is no real defect in that respect, and no amendment in regard to then would meet the real objection that, taking everything he sets forth to be true, he does not show any cause of action. That, as already said, can only be settled on demurrer, and a rule, such as here made absolute, is not an equivalent. On the face of the record there is no final judgment, but merely an apparent interlocutory order, from which an appeal would not lie. But it is said by appellant, and appears to be conceded by appellce, that in its practical effect the rule is a judgment for defendant. We are therefore compelled to treat it as the subject of appeal, or leave the plaintiff without remedy for a' plain wrong. The statement does not in terms declare upon the fraud of defendant, and has other serious faults, in that it does not aver facts categorically according to their legal effect, which is the office of good pleading, but sets out the evidence in extenso, with the facts affirmed or implied, all in a general mixture together. But it is a fair specimen of such pleading as the act of 1887 invites, and ought not to be held fatally bad if on scrutiny it discloses the substantial requisites of a good narr. in deceit. We think it does 80. It is not indispensable that fraud facts would support an inference of fraud should be averred in express terms if the by the jury. This statement sets out the agreement of defendant, in writing, in his own name, to sell plaintiff the "Hiram Potts Farm," with an averment that said farm includes certain land, the subject of controversy; that plaintiff, on asking for the title papers, in order to draw a deed under the agreement, was furnished by defendant with a deed purporting to convey to defendant's wife the land in the agreement; that, following the description in said deed, a conveyance was prepared by plaintiff, executed by defendant and wife, and the purchase money paid or secured according to agreement; that subsequent. ly plaintiff, on receiving delivery of possession by defendant, learned that the deed did not convey the whole of the Hiram Potts farm, but omitted an important part thereof, which furnished access |