Peerless Casualty Co., Bruzas v. (Me.).. 199 Rector, etc., of St. James Church v. Wilson (N. J. Ch... 519 988 433 Reimers v. Proctor Pub. Co. (N. J. Sup.).. 931 465 437 Renner, Wilson v. (N. J.)....... 758 87 Rhode Island Co., Malakia v. (R. I.) 337 Rhode Island Warehouse Co. v. W. H. Holt 706 45 Rice v. Braden (Pa.). 877 Pennsylvania R. Co., Moore v. (Pa.). 671 Richardson v. Bailey (N. H.).. 840 Riddell v. Rochester German Ins. Co. of 833 Pennsylvania Realty Co. of New Jersey, Riker, Liondale Bleach, Dye & Paint Ludlam v. (N. J. Ch.).. 998 Works v. (N. J. Sup.).. 829 Pennypacker, Leonard v. (N. J.). 26 Riley v. Norton (R. Î.).. 709 Penrose, Margate Co. v. (N. J.). 749 Riley, Town of Farmington v. (Conn.). 900 People's R. Co., Neely v. (Del. Super.). 211 Rinehart, Lorah v. (Pa.). 967 Perth Amboy Pub. Co., Crouse v. (N. J. Rinehuls v. Ely (Pa.).. 668 Sup.) 1003 Peterson's Estate, In re (Pa.) 126 Rippel v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America (N. J. Sup.).... 548 Petrarca, Razza v. (R. I.). 712 Robbins v. Robbins (Md.). .1135 Phelps, Judson v. (Conn.). 161 Roberts, Tappan v. (Del. Super.). 54 Philadelphia, B. & W. R. Co., Public Service Commission of Maryland v. (Md.)... Philadelphia, B. & W. R. Co., Trimble v. (Del. Super.) Robinson, Trenton Trust & Safe Deposit Philadelphia & R. R. Co., Piepke v. (Pa.).. 124 Rochester German Ins. Co. of New York, 833 982 Rockville Nat. Bank v. Latham (Conn.). .1117 Piepke v. Philadelphia & R. R. Co. (Pa.).. 124 Roessner v. Mitchell (Md.).. 722 510 Rogers, Sumption v. (Pa.).. 121 Pindell, Board of Com'rs of Howard Coun Rogis v. Barnatowich (R. I.). 838 Ronan v. Barr (N. J. Ch.)... 282 Pirics v. First Russian Slavonic Greek 1036 Rosa, State v. (Conn.).. 163 Pittis v. Pittis (N. J.)... 749 Rose, Botwin v. (R. I.). 339 Pittsburgh Gage & Supply Co., McGrath v. (Pa.) Rose v. Hoye (R. I.). 242 1129 Pittsburgh, H., B. & N. C. R. Co., King v. (Pa.) Rosenberg v. Arrowsmith (N. J. Ch.) 524 888 Pittsburgh Rys. Co., Lapsley v. (Pa.). 874 Rosenthal, State v. (N. J. Sup.) .1045 Pittsburgh Rys. Co., McGonigal v. (Pa.).. 805 Rosolin, Eigen v. (N. J. Sup.). 923 Pittsburgh Rys. Co., Myers v. (Pa.).. 577 Ross, Appeal of (Pa.). 816 Pittsburgh Rys. Co., Weiss v. (Pa.). 586 Ross v. South Delaware Gas Co. (Del. Ch.) 593 Pittsburgh Steel Co., Bell v. (Pa.). 813 Roth v. Bayonne (N. J.).. 51 816 Rowell v. Mushlin v. (N. H.). 840 -828 Russell Lumber Co., Coast Central Mill Co. v. (Conn.) 898 Pittsburgh & L. E. R. Co., Irwin v. (Pa.).. 802 Pope v. Clark (Md.). Porter v. Porter (N. J. Ch.). 145 996 St. James Church v. Wilson (N. J. Ch.). . St. Vincent's Church, Madison, v. Council of Borough of Madison (N. J. Sup.).... 14 Salem Light, Heat & Power Co., Common387 wealth Trust Co. v. (N. H.). 251 Sanborn v. Enosburg Falls (Vt.).. Shaffer, McHendry v. (Pa.). 587 Stoner, Smith v. (Pa.). 795 Sheehy v. Barry (Conn.). 259 Shepard & Co. v. New York Life Ins. Co. (Conn.) Sherman Co. v. Champlin (R. I.). 455 Shields v. John Shields Const. Co. (N. J. Shields Const. Co., Shields v. (N. J. Ch.). .1022 Shoemaker v. Central R. R. of New Jersey 1022 Stoops v. Kittanning Tel. Co. (Pa.). 686 988 .1023 186 156 940 13 156 550 121 517 518 Shorey v. Webb (Md.). Supreme Colony United Order of Pilgrim 264 564 134 922 Swan v. Indiana (Pa.). 664 Smith, Bateman Mfg. Co. v. (N. J. Sup.).. 979 Swayze, Hudspeth v. (N. J.). 780 257 Smith v. Smith (Conn.).. Smith v. Stoner (Pa.) 795 Tarbox v. Tarbox (Me.).. 194 Taylor, Horgan v. (R. I.). .1058 Sparrow v. Watson (Vt.)... Smith Const. Co., Tenth Nat. Bank of Somers Land Co., Ingersoll v. (N. J. Ch.).. 288 South Delaware Gas Co., Ross v. (Del. Ch.) 593 468 Terlecki v. Strauss (N. J. Sup.) Tidewater Portland Cement Co. v. State 76 Tenth Nat. Bank of Philadelphia v. Smith 76 .1023 414 844 327 Tilley, Town of St. George v. (Vt.) 474 99 Toler, Gordon v. (N. J. Ch.). .1020 Spruance v. Anderson (Del. Super.). 1 989 State v. Block (Conn.)... 167 State v. Board of Health and Vital Statis Town of Bloomfield, Bradley v. (N. J. Sup.) 1009 tics of Hudson County (N. J. Sup.). 250 (Vt.) 466 Town of Farmington v. Riley (Conn.).. 900 State v. Caporale (N. J. Sup.). 1034 Town of Hampton, Granite State Land Co. v. (N. H.).. 842 Town of West Hartford v. Coleman (Conn.)1120 474 State v. Collingswood Sewerage Co. (N. J. Town of Waitsfield v. Craftsbury (Vt.)... 466 264 State v. Dugan (N. J.).. 1135 (Pa.) 683 State v. Dugan (N. J. Sup.). State v. Elizabethtown Water Co. (N. J. 691 Township of Washington in Mercer County State, Green 'v. (Md.). ́ v. Mercer County Board of Taxation (N. 1039 J. Sup.). 608 Trask v. Karrick (Vt.). 1028 472 State v. Greene (Vt.) 743 Trenton Trust & Safe Deposit Co. v. Robinson (N. J. Ch.). 751 State v. Kuhns (Del. Super.). State, McCleary v. (Md.). 1 1100 Trimble v. Philadelphia, B. & W. R. Co. (Del. Super.). 370 State v. Mausert (N. J. Sup.). 850 755 Trustees of First Presbyterian Church in .1118 Newark v. Miller., two cases (N. J. Sup.) 999 State v. Rosenthal (N. J. Sup.). 163 Turney v. McKown (Pa.) .1045 Twichell v. Gross (Md.). 522 Tyson, Cotten v. (Md.). 797 385 113 994 741 480 455 .1017 .1006 514 Welzel, Shetter v. (Pa.). 204 714 .1196 .1116 Umbach v. Umbach (N. J. Ch.). 23 Van Handlyn's Will, In re (N. J. Prerog.) 1010 White v. Central Vermont R. Co. (Vt.). 285 .1004 393 618 272 981 .1081 269 Wilkens Co. v. Consolidated Agr. Chemical 5 William Wilkens Co. v. Consolidated Agr. 5 152 367 Vogt v. Mullin (N. J. Ch.).. Wagner, Craig v. (Conn.). Williams v. New York Life Ins. Co. (Md.) 533 Wilmer v. Mitchell (Md.). 97 612 532 Wilson, Arthurs v. (Pa.).. 464 Wilson v. Cheshire Brass Co. (Conn.). 903 Wardwell, Kaliamotes v. (Me.). 313 Wilson v. Renner (N. J.).. 758 Winslow v. Dakin (Me.). .1134 Warren v. Pittsburgh & B. St. R. Co. (Pa.) 828 Withington v. Bradley (Me.). 201 651 Washington County Water Co. v. Hagerstown (Md.) .. Woburn Nat. Bank v. Woods (N. H.). 491 975 500 Watch Hill Fire Dist., Barber v. (R. I.)...1056 Woods, Woburn Nat. Bank v. (N. H.). 491 973 178 Wueppeshal v. Connecticut Co. (Conn.)... 253 Wyatt, State v. (Del. Gen. Sess.). 166 217 Watson v. Cameron (Me.) 143 Watson, Sparrow v. (Vt.). Webb, Shorey v. (Md.). 391 Zambarano, Cimini v. (R.I.) 711 Webber, Damon v. (Me.). Wedin, State v. (N. J. Sup.). Weiss v. Pittsburgh Rys. Co. (Pa.) 734 Zarecki v. Guarantee Realty Co. (N. J. Ch.) 513 753 Ziegener, Deats v. (N. J.)... 31 586 Zimmerman v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. (Pa.) 461 243 THE ATLANTIC REPORTER VOLUME 89 (4 Boyce, 414) SPRUANCE et al. v. ANDERSON. PLEADING (§ 350*)-AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENSE- Harvey Spruance and John F. Hehl were directors thereof. "That the said Calver Anderson derived no personal benefits whatever from the amount of money received from the discount of these notes." Snap judgments, except in clear cases, be- It is the opinion of the court that the affiing looked on with disfavor, judgment, under davit of defense though somewhat indefinite, the statute, at the first term, on an affidavit of demand, notwithstanding the affidavit of shows, nevertheless, the probable existence of defense, will be denied; the affidavit of defense, certain equities which, as between the parthough somewhat indefinite, showing probable ties, would constitute a legal defense to the existence of equities which, as between the par- notes sued upon. Greater certainty as to ties, would constitute a legal defense to the notes sued on, it being that the money received the nature and character of the defense is, from their discount was paid to a certain trust of course, to be desired in affidavits of decompany to pay the notes of a corporation, offense than is shown in the one now before the which defendant, the signer, was treasurer, and the indorsers were directors, and defendant derived no personal benefit from the money. [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. 88 1053, 1054, 1070-1077; Dec. Dig. $350.*] Action of assumpsit by J. Harvey Spruance and another against Calver Anderson on two promissory notes. Affidavits of demand and defense filed. Motion made by plaintiffs for judgment at the first term of court, under the statute, notwithstanding the affidavit of defense. Motion denied. Argued before BOYCE and RICE, JJ. Armon D. Chaytor, Jr., of Wilmington, for plaintiffs. James Saulsbury, of Wilmington, for defendant. BOYCE, J. This is a motion for judgment at the first term notwithstanding the affidavit of defense filed, the nature and character of the defense being stated as follows: "That the notes named in the affidavit of demand of the said plaintiffs were signed by the said Calver Anderson and indorsed by the said J. Harvey Spruance and John F. Hehl, and the money received from the discount of these two notes was paid to the said Wilmington Trust Company, a corporation of the state of Delaware, to pay two certain notes for the same amounts of money as named in these two notes given by the Peninsula Cut Stone Company, a corporation of the state of Delaware, of which the said Calver was treasurer and the said J. Anderson court; but the object of the statute providing (4 Boyce, 416) STATE ex rel. WOLCOTT, Atty. Gen., v. KUHNS. (Superior Court of Delaware. New Castle. Oct. 10, 1913.) 1. STATES (8_47*)-OFFICERS-APPOINTMENTPOWER OF GOVERNOR. The power of appointment conferred on the Governor by Act April 6, 1911 (26 Del. Laws, c. 78), establishing the State Live Stock Sanitary Board, consisting of members of the State Board of Agriculture and a veterinarian, who shall be a competent and qualified person and a graduate of a veterinary college of good standing, to be appointed by the Governor, is restricted to the lege in good standing, and the appointment of appointment of a graduate of a veterinary colone without the statutory qualification is without authority of law. [Ed. Note. For other cases, see States, Cent. Dig. 52; Dec. Dig. § 47.*] *For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep'r Indexes vides: ernor, was a graduate of a veterinary college in ry Board," which among other things progood standing as required by the statute, will determine whether such appointee is a graduate of a veterinary college, but will not disturb the decision of the Governor that the college is one in good standing. "That a board is hereby established to be known as the 'State Live Stock Sanitary Board.' The board shall consist of the mem [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Quo War-bers of the State Board of Agriculture as the ranto, Cent. Dig. § 68; Dec. Dig. § 57.*] said board is now constituted and as it may 3. QUO WARRANTO (§ 51*) PLEADINGS-Is- be constituted hereafter, and a veterinarian SUES. Where, in quo warranto to show by what authority an appointee of the Governor under a state law creating an office holds office, the appointee relies on his appointment, a replication joining a matter for the court with one not for it must be considered as a whole and is bad. [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Quo Warranto, Cent. Dig. § 56; Dec. Dig. § 51.*] 4. QUO WARRANTO (§ 1*)-NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS-PLEADINGS. A quo warranto proceeding is a prosecution, and the information is less of a narr. than an accusation, and by the information respondent is accused of usurping an office, and is called on to show by what authority he holds it. [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Quo Warranto, Cent. Dig. §§ 1, 3, 23, 28; Dec, Dig. § 1.*] 5. QUO WARRANTO (§ 50*) PLEA. -- INFORMATION Respondent in quo warranto must show by what authority he holds the office which he is alleged to usurp, and where the authority is controlled by qualifications, he must show such qualifications to disclose his authority, and a plea relying simply on the appointment, without showing the statutory qualifications to receive the appointment, is bad. [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Quo Warranto, Cent. Dig. §§ 53-55; Dec. Dig. § 50.*] 6. QUO WARRANTO (§ 55*)-ISSUES-BURDEN OF PROOF. Respondent in quo warranto, who relies on his appointment to the office which he is alleged to usurp, and on the statutory qualifications prescribed for the office, has the burden of showing his qualifications. [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Quo Warranto, Cent. Dig. §§ 63-65; Dec. Dig. § 55.*] 7. STATES (8 46*)-OFFICERS-APPOINTMENT VALIDITY. Where a statute which creates an office and empowers the Governor to fill it by appointment does not take effect until a future date, an appointment after the passage of the act, but before the future date, is invalid. who shall be a competent and qualified person and a graduate of a veterinary college in good standing, to be appointed by the Governor for the term of three years. "That this act shall take effect ten days after approval by the Governor. The Attorney General of the state of Delaware, in an action instituted on behalf of the state of Delaware against one Justus R. Kuhns, obtained leave of this court to file an information in the nature of a writ of quo warranto, wherein he recited the provisions of the statute referred to, disclosed that the respondent was not a member of the State Board of Agriculture, and was not therefore a member ex officio of the State Live Stock Sanitary Board, and by the information charged that since the 10th day of April, A. D. 1911, Justus R. Kuhns, the respondent, has used, usurped and without legal right has exercised and still exercises the office, franchises, liberties and privileges of a member of the said the State Live Stock Sanitary Board, and prayed that inquiry be made of the said Justus R. Kuhns wherefore and by what warrant or authority he used and still uses, enjoys and employs the said office, franchises, liberties and privileges. The respondent, by his plea, as warrant for the use and assumption by him of the office, franchises and privileges of a member of the said board, declared that before using and assuming the same, to wit, on the 10th day of April, 1911, he was appointed and commissioned by the Governor of the state of Delaware a member thereof. The state, by its replication, replied in substance that the respondent, at the time [Ed. Note. For other cases, see States, Cent. he was appointed and commissioned, did not Dig. 51; Dec. Dig. § 46.*] · Quo warranto by the State, on relation of Josiah O. Wolcott, Attorney General, against Justus R. Kuhns. On demurrer to replication. Judgment against defendant. See, also, 88 Atl. 455. Josiah O. Wolcott, Atty. Gen., and Hugh M. Morris, of Wilmington, for relator. Daniel O. Hastings and Richard S. Rodney, both of Wilmington, for respondent. possess the qualifications for the office required by the statute, in that he was not then "a graduate of a veterinary college in good standing." To the replication the respondent demurred generally. For want of further particularity in the pleadings, it must be assumed, as a necessary implication, that the particular membership of the board to which the respondent was appointed and commissioned by the Governor was that of veterinarian, as that is the only appointment to the board which the Governor is authorized by the law to make, the other members being members by virtue of their incumbency of other offices. WOOLLEY, J. (delivering the opinion of the court). The issues of law presented by the pleadings in this case arise out of an act of the General Assembly of 1911 (chapter 78, [1] For ground of demurrer the respondent volume 26, Laws of Delaware), entitled "An contends, that the Governor of the state of act to establish the State Live Stock Sanita- | Delaware, constituting the executive de |