Pennsylvania R. Co., Frank v., two cases (N. J. Sup.). 691 1055 R. B. Little & Co., Ennis v. (R. I.). 884 ..1072 849 344 .1103 .1029 Pennsylvania R. Co., Holt v. (Pa.). 2 335 790 35 Peter Adams Paper Co. v. Cassard (Pa.).. 949 .1003 Reischmann v. Masker (N. J. Err. & App.) 301 .... Rhymer v. Fretz (Pa.). Ricards v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co. Riccio v. Hoboken (N. J. Err. & App.) 877 696 Philadelphia Traction Co., City of Philadelphia v. (Pa.).. 762 Philadelphia & T. R. Co. v. Neshaminy Richardson v. Hatch (N. J. Ch.) Richmond v. Bennett (Pa.).. Richmond's Estate, In re (Pa.).. Ridgely v. Wilmer (Md.).. Roberts v. Fernald (N. H.). Roberts, Garcin v. (N. J. Sup.). Roberts, Godfrey v. (N. J. Ch.). Roberts Bros. v. Dover (N. H.). Roe, Doe v. (Del. Super.). .1115 17 970 488 942 43 353 895 341 Elevated R. Co. (Pa.). .1034 Rogers, In re (Vt.). 661 Philadelphia & W. C. Traction Co., Glenn v. (Pa.) 860 Phillips, In re (R. I.). 696 Rogers v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co. of Baltimore (Md.) 679 XV Schrader v. Beatty (Pa.). 958 650 Schultz v. Van Doren (N. J. Err. & App.)..1133 791 366 Scranton, Jenkins v. (Pa.). 789 Searing v. Clark (N. J. Sup.). 690 S. E. Crowley Co. v. Myers (N. J. Err. & 305 Seeley v. Adams (N. J. Ch.).. 820 State v. Iannucci (Del. Gen. Sess.) 336 555 3 553 591 45 .1006 644 589 323 831 610 Seely v. Manhattan Life Ins. Co. (N. H.) 425 91 State v. Sienkiewiez (Del. Gen. Sess.). 346 899 Shay, Kelley v. (Pa.). 927 Shay, Kelley v. (Pa.). State v. Webb's River Imp. Co. (Me.).... 495 .1135 State v. Young (N. J. Sup.). 91 Sheets, Payne v. (Vt.). 656 State v. Zdanowicz (N. J. Err. & App.)... 743 State Mut. Building & Loan Ass'n v. O'Callahan (N. J. Err. & App.). ..1002 Shirk, Eberly v. (Pa.). .1071 State Taxation, In re (Me.). 827 Shmilovitz v. Bares (Conn.).. 560 Stauffer v. Reading (Pa.). .1072 637 Temple v. Bush (Conn.).... 285 Tenafly, Allison Land Co. v. (N. J. Sup.).. 324 Standard Oil Co., Meany v. (N. J. Sup.).. 653 State v. Clough (N. H.).. State v. Cook (Del. Gen. Sess.). State v. Cunningham (Vt.). State v. Di Guglielmo (Del. Gen. Sess.). State v. Harrigan (Del. Gen. Sess.). Town of Meriden v. Bennett (Conn.). 44 Townsend, McDaniel v. (Del. Super.).... 94 Traynor, Ó'Brien v. (N. J. Err. & App.).. 307 937 Tremblay v. Etna Life Ins. Co. (Me.).... 509 554 Trenton, Ivins v. (N. J. Err. & App.).....1132 .1012 Trenton Trust & Safe Deposit Co. v. Don654 nelly (N. J. Ch.). 644 Trenton Water Power Co., Colonial Woolen 350 Co. v. (N. J. Ch.).. 92 993 557 39 824 930 539 56 758 879 690 735 124 710 564 6 Uncas Paper Co. v. Corbin (Conn.). 165 42 715 (Vt.) 662 490 688 16 641 844 972 543 Wheeler v. Equitable Trust Co. (Pa.)....1065 979 15 Wheeler v. Young (Conn.). 670 99 United New Jersey R. & Canal Co. v. Consolidated Fruit Jar Co. (N. J. Ch.). United Rys. & Electric Co. v. Rowe (Md.).. United Railways & Electric Co. of Baltimore v. Hertel (Md.).. 46 White, Brown v. (Pa.).. 848 703 White, Lewis v. (Del. Suner.). 830 United Railways & Electric Co. of Baltimore v. Woodbridge (Md.).. Whitlock, Gold Bluff Mining & Lumber 175 444 Whitman v. Lewiston (Me.). 414 United Railways & Electric Co. of Baltimore, Garrison v. (Md.). Whitridge, Doyle v. (Md.).. 459 371 United Security Life Ins. & Trust Co., Ap Wickford Sav. Bank v. Corey (R. I.). 684 753 peal of (Pa.). 216 Wilhelm, Appeal of (Pa.). 776 United States Phonograph Co., Hayes v. (N. J. Ch.)... United Traction Co., Hinnershitz v. (Pa.) 841 999 William Knabe & Co. Mfg. Co. of Baltimore, Courtney v. (Md.). 614 Williams v. Williams (Pa.). 835 See End of Index for Tables of Atlantic Cases in State Reports. t THE ATLANTIC REPORTER. VOLUME 55. MONAHAN v. LEWIS, Receiver of Taxes. (Superior Court of Delaware. New Castle. June 9, 1903.) TAXATION-RURAL REAL ESTATE-RATE— STATUTES-REPEAL. 1. Act Gen. Assem. March 22, 1897 (20 Del. Laws, p. 669, c. 555), providing that all of a certain part of the city of Wilmington, between Seventh and Twelfth streets, being unimproved property, should pay for city and school taxes a rate not exceeding one-fourth of the regular rate levied on persons and estates in the remaining parts of the city, was repealed by Act May 20, 1898 (21 Del. Laws, p. 244, c. 106), providing that the lowest tax on any real estate therein was fixed at one-half the highest rate of taxes required to be levied on built-up portions of the city for each year, and repealing acts inconsistent with its provisions. Action by Patrick Monahan against Thomas S. Lewis, as receiver of taxes, etc. Judgment for defendant. Argued before LORE, C. J., and GRUBB and PENNEWILL, JJ. Robert Pennington, for plaintiff. David J. Reinhardt, City Sol., for defendant. LORE, C. J. From the case stated, it appears: That by the act of the General Assembly of March 22, 1897 (volume 20, Laws Del. p. 669, c. 555), it was provided that all that part of the city of Wilmington between Seventh and Twelfth streets and Greenhill and Woodlawn avenues, being unimproved property, should pay for city and school taxes "a rate not exceeding onefourth of the regular rate levied on persons and estates in the remaining parts of the said city." That the plaintiff was the owner of certain real estate within said limits. That subsequently the act of May 20, 1898, was passed (chapter 106, vol. 21, Laws Del. p. 244), which was entitled "An act to classify real estate for the purposes of taxation, and to exempt certain lands from municipal taxation within the city of Wilmington." Under the last act, all the real estate of said city, other than marsh land, was classified as "rural or suburban, and built up portions," and the lowest tax upon any real estate therein was fixed at one-half the highest rate 55 A.-1 of tax required to be levied on the built-up portions for each year. Section 7 of this act expressly repeals all acts or parts of acts inconsistent with its provisions. The taxes on the plaintiff's real estate for the year 1899 were rated and collected under the act of 1898 at one-half the regular tax rate for that year, and for 1900 at the full rate. That the said taxes were paid under protest by the said plaintiff, as being illegally exacted, and with the avowed intention to sue for their recovery. That the excess of taxes paid by the plaintiff over a one-fourth rate for the year 1899 was $45.22, and for the year 1900 was $150, aggregating $195.22, which, with interest on each sum from the date of payment, plaintiff claims in this action. One of the questions raised in the case is whether the act of 1897 is repealed by the act of 1898. The act of 1897 fixes the taxes on the lands in question at one-fourth the regular rate for any year. The act of 1898, on the other hand, fixes the lowest rate of taxes thereon for any one year at one-half the regular rate. In this respect, therefore, the two acts are clearly inconsistent, and to that extent the law of 1898 repeals the act of 1897. As this conclusion disposes of the case, it is unnecessary for us to decide the other questions raised and discussed. Let judgment be entered for the defendant for costs, under the terms of the case stated. LAW & ORDER SOC. v. MAYOR, ETC., OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS-FINES-DISTRIBU- 1. Act Gen. Assem. May 26, 1897 (20 Del. Laws, p. 714, c. 597), gives the Law & Order Society one-half of all fines collected in any county where the evidence securing the conviction is procured by the society, and Wilmington city charter (17 Del. Laws, p. 491, c. 207) provides that all fines shall, except as otherwise provided, be put into the city treasury for the use of the corporation. Held, that the excep tion in the charter applied to such laws as might be passed thereafter, and hence the Law & Order Society was entitled to one-half of the fines collected on a prosecution under the city charter, where it furnished the evidence securing conviction. Action by the Law & Order Society against the mayor and council of the city of Wilmington. Judgment for plaintiff. Argued before LORE, C. J., and GRUBB and PENNEWILL, JJ. William S. Prickett, for plaintiff. David J. Reinhardt, City Sol., for defendant. LORE, C. J. The plaintiff claims in this action one-half of certain fines imposed by the municipal court for the city of Wilmington under an act of the General Assembly passed at Dover May 26, 1897, which gave to the plaintiff "one-half of all the fines, penalties and forfeitures imposed and collected in any county of this state where evidence to secure the conviction shall be produced and furnished by the Law and Order Society of Wilmington, a corporation of the state of Delaware, or its agent or agents." 20 Del. Laws, p. 714, c. 597. A part of the said fines were imposed for the sale of intoxicating liquors without a license, under section 19, c. 418, p. 398, vol. 14, Laws of Delaware. The plaintiff's right to one-half of these fines is not denied by defendant. The residue of the fines claimed were imposed under the charter and ordinances of the said city. The defendant claims that the last-named fines belonged to the city under section 148 of the city charter, which is as follows: "All fines and forfeitures incurred under this act, or under any ordinance of the said city, shall, except in cases otherwise provided for by law, be enforced, collected and paid into the city treasury for the use of the corporation." 17 Del. Laws, p. 491, c. 207. In our judgment, the Legislature was acting within the exception above named in section 148 of the said charter when it gave the one-half of the fines to the plaintiff in the cases named in the act of May 26, 1897; that the exception applies not only to laws then in existence, but also to such as might be passed thereafter in pursuance thereof. Our opinion, therefore, is that the plaintiff is entitled to one-half of all the fines claimed in the case stated. CARRIERS-INJURY TO PASSENGER-PLEADING -DEMURRER-CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL. 1. 21 Laws Del. p. 269, c. 126, requiring a demurrer to be accompanied by certificate of counsel that he believes it good in law and not made for delay, is not repealed by 21 Laws Del. p. 582, c. 303, requiring judgment of respondeat ouster to be entered on issues joined on demurrer in certain cases, and containing no requirement for a certificate. 2. In an action against a street railway for injuries to a passenger, a narr. averring generally that the company negligently used insufficient and defective brakes and other appliances, by reason of which its servants lost control of the car, and plaintiff was injured while endeavoring to escape, was demurrable for not specifying the particular appliances that caused the injury, and how the injury was received. Action for personal injuries by Georgeanna Newton against the People's Railway Company. Demurrer to petition sustained. The narr. contained five counts. The allegations in the first count of the declaration were, inter alia, as follows: "(1) For that whereas, heretofore, to wit, at the time of the committing of the grievances hereinafter mentioned, of the said People's Railway Company, the defendant above named was, and still is, a corporation existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, in control of and operating, as a common carrier of passengers, a certain line of railway in the city of Wilmington, county and state aforesaid. And the said plaintiff avers that heretofore, to wit, on the 12th day of November, A. D. 1902, at New Castle county aforesaid, the said plaintiff was a passenger, for hire, of the said defendant, on one of the cars then and there being controlled and operated by said defendant on its said line of railway on one of the streets of said city, known as 'Clayton Street,' and that said defendant, in disregard of its duty to said plaintiff, then and there negligently and carelessly suffered and permitted to be used on its said car insufficient and defective brakes and other appliances to stop said car, and by reason thereof the servant or servants of said defendant in charge of said car upon which said plaintiff, passenger as aforesaid, was then and there riding, lost control of said car, and by reason thereof said plaintiff, while in the exercise of due care and caution on her part, to wit, the day and year aforeI said, at New Castle county aforesaid, being in imminent peril of her life, and while endeavoring to escape from the condition of peril arising from said negligence and carelessness of said defendant, was badly hurt, bruised, and injured," etc. The fourth count differed from the first only in that it alleged that the plaintiff, "being in imminent peril of her life, and while endeavoring to escape from the condition of peril arising from said negligence and carelessness, was, by and through the negligence and carelessness aforesaid, badly hurt, bruised, and injured," etc. The fifth count differed from the said first, count in alleging that "the said plaintiff avers that heretofore, to wit, on the 12th day of November, A. D. 1902, at New Castle county aforesaid, that the said defendant negligently and carelessly suffered and permitted the bed and tracks of its said railway to be and remain in bad condition, out of order and repair, and that by reason 2. See Carriers, vol. 9, Cent. Dig. § 1275). |