Jenkins v. White, that the endorser did not expect the note to be paid at maturity, and could not have been injured by failure to give notice; much less is there anything to show an admission of liability after the dishonor of the note. The maker, no doubt, assured the defendant when she endorsed the second note that he could, by paying the other half, take care of the larger note; and if he did not make this offer to the holders, or if they rejected it, defendant was certainly entitled to notice of the protest of the first note. We have the two cases contrasted, and the cases cited in Story on Promissory Notes. There we find it laid down, Sec. 364, that where the endorser undertook to attend to the renewal of the note and to take care of it, this was a waiver or at least evidence of it. But Sec. 365, where after dishonor he offers to endorse a new note for the same amount, which offer is not accepted, this is no evidence of waiver. In Memoriam. WESLEY I. CRAIG, Esq. A meeting of the members of the Allegheny County Bar was held at the rooms of the Bar Association on Monday, December 7, 1903, to take suitable action on the death of WESLEY I. CRAIG, Esq. President-Joseph Hays, Esq. Vice-Presidents-Hon. Frederick H. Collier, Hon. Robert S. Frazer, Hon. John M. Kennedy and Hon. J. J. Miller. Committee on Resolutions-George W. Acklin, Esq., Alfred Kerr, Esq., John F. Cox, Esq., Robert S. Sill, Esq., and Wm. A. Hope, Esq. Secretaries-Wm. E. Fulton, Esq., Geo. H. Lepper, Esq., and D. R. Jones, Esq. The committee on resolutions reported the following minute, which was unanimously adopted: The rule is discharged and a new trial is Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Bar: refused. For plaintiff, H. G. Wasson. ANNOTATIONS OF BRIGHTLY'S PURDON'S DIGEST, twelfth edition referring to BRIGHTLY'S DIGEST OF LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA, 1893-1903. C. N. WRENSHALL, Publisher, Stephen Girard Build ing, Philadelphia. The above annotations have been received for use in Brightly's Purdon's Digest, twelfth edition. So far as appears now there will be no digest published which will include the statutes to date in one work. The value of these slips is thus readily apparent, and when properly placed in the Digest issued in 1893 will show on margin whether the act that is being studied has been amended or repealed by giving reference to the repealing or amending act in Brightly's Digest of statutes from 1893 to 1903, just published. They are issued in a very brief convenient form. WESLEY IRWIN CRAIG was born in the Twenty-third ward, Pittsburgh, Allegheny county, nearly 52 years since, and died December 4, 1903, at his house near Arlington, in Scott township. His boyhood was spent on his father's farm on Squirrel Hill; and he attended the public schools; and he very early in life began to do business and earn his own living as a laborer and a country school teacherteaching at Homestead, Pa., and other places near Pittsburgh. He registered as a student at law with Joseph Hays, Esq., on March 13, 1880, and was regularly admitted to practice in the several courts of Allegheny county on June 30, 1883. Early in his professional career he gained a numerous clientage and built modest and unassuming in the extreme, but up a lucrative practice. He was quiet, was strong in his knowledge of the law and patient and painstaking in all of his work, and so won success. Mr. CRAIG was a lawyer in every sense of the word, high-minded, upright and conA WITHDRAWAL of an action for divorce, scientious. He knew no interest but that of brought by a wife, is held, in Oppenheimer v. his clients, and stood firmly for their inCollins (Wis.) 60 L. R. A. 406, not to be suf-terests regardless of consequences. ficient to support a conveyance by the hus-integrity was above suspicion, and his manband to the wife of his interest in his father's ner always respectful to opposing counsel estate against the claims of his creditors. and to witnesses. His Attached to his family and home; he never sought notoriety, but in the practice of his profession he gained a reputation to be envied. JOHN S. LAMBIE, Esq. A meeting of the members of the Allegheny County Bar was held at the rooms of the Bar Association on Monday, December 14, 1903, to take suitable action on the death of JOHN S. LAMBIE, Esq. President-Sol Schoyer, Esq. Vice-Presidents—Hon. E. H. Stowe, Hon. F. H. Collier, Hon. Marshall Brown, Hon. Robt. S. Frazer, Hon. Jno. D. Shafer, Hon. Elliott Rodgers, Hon. S. A. McClung, Hon. J. A. Evans, Thos. A. Noble, Esq., and Major A. M. Brown, Esq. Committee on Resolutions-Thos. Patterson, Esq., C. C. Dickey, Esq., Major R. E. Stewart, Esq., A. B. Hay, Esq., and John A. Wilson, Esq. Secretaries J. J. McAfee, Esq., W. H. Leahy, Esq., and W. C. Anderson, Esq. The committee on resolutions reported the following minute, which was unanimously adopted: Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Bar: JOHN SIOUSSA LAMBIE was born in the city of Pittsburgh on November 1, 1843. He received his preliminary education in the common schools and graduated with honor from the Pittsburgh Central High School. He then turned his attention to his chosen profession, entering the office of the late Thomas M. Marshall and A. M. Brown, who survives him, then associated as partners in the practice of law under the name of Marshall and Brown. His studies were interrupted by his enlistment for the defence of his country in the war of the Rebellion, where he served with credit under the late Col. John B. Clarke. Having completed his term of service, and received an honorable discharge, he resumed his legal studies, and on the 17th day of April 1865, was admitted to the bar. He immediately entered into partnership with A. M. Brown, Esq., and continued therein for many years. He was known as a skilled practitioner, being thoroughly familiar not only with the theoretical but the practical side of the practice of law. As a parliamentary lawyer he had few equals, and his devotion to and his prominence in the councils of the city of Pittsburgh were justly celebrated. In those cases which he conducted before the court and jury he was noted for his strong and rugged eloquence. His manner was pleasing and kindly. He had always a gracious word for his brethren in the profession who were younger than himself. For years a sufferer, he nevertheless preserved at all times a kindly interest in all that concerned his profession and discharged his public and social duties without any intimation of the fatal disease which was preying upon him. In his death the bar has sustained the loss of an able and genial associate and the community that of an untiring and devoted public servant. CICERO HASBROUCK, Esq. A meeting of the members of the Allegheny County Bar was held at the rooms of the Bar Association on Thursday, December 17, 1903, to take suitable action on the death of CICERO HASBROUCK, Esq. President-Hon. M. W. Acheson. Edwin H. Stowe, Hon. Christopher Magee, Hon. John M. Kennedy, Sol Schoyer, Jr., Esq., D. D. Bruce, Esq., Hon. W. G. Hawkins, and Hon. A. M. Brown. Vice-Presidents-Hon. F. H. Collier, Hon. Committee on Resolutions-Andrew G. Miller, Esq., M. C. Acheson, Esq., B. C. Christy, Esq., R. B. Petty, Esq., and C. C. Dickey, Esq. Acklin, Esq., and John H. Kerr, Esq. Secretaries J. L. Ritchie, Esq., Geo. W. Acklin, Esq., and John H. Kerr, Esq. The committee on resolutions reported the following minute, which was unanimously adopted: Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Bar: taught school there some years. He then came to Allegheny county and taught school for some time at Elizabeth, Pa., and some of the most prominent men in the city of Pittsburgh and elsewhere were his pupils in the little school house at Elizabeth. Some of the ablest professors in at least one of our leading colleges in Pennsylvania received their training in the higher mathematics from Hasbrouck. He was a profound mathematician and seemed to imbibe the higher mathematics as a pastime. He was most thorough in everything he undertook and mastered the finest detail of every subject he studied. During the time he taught school at Elizabeth he began the study of law. He registered as a student with John Williamson, Esq., and was admitted to practive at the Allegheny County Bar on motion of the Hon. Richard Biddle on May 10, 1845. In the year 1849 he was chief clerk in the sheriff's office, and so satisfactory was his management of that office that the next year the prothonotary come to him and asked him to take charge of his office in the capacity of chief clerk, which he did. From 1851 to 1854 he was associated in the practice of law with Francis C. Flanigan who was the first district attorney of Allegheny county, and from that time until about four years ago he continued the practice of his profession, when his sight began to fail him and he was compelled to retire from active practice at the age of 81 years. Mr. Hasbrouck was a man of integrity. He was constant in his advocacy of every principle he adopted and was never tempted to forsake it that a personal advantage might thereby come to him. While he was actively engaged in the practice of law he held a commanding place among his professional brethern, who acknowledged his legal learning and admitted his capacity. He was an amicus curiae. On difficult questions of law, and particulary of practice, he was frequently consulted by the judges. In German Savings & Deposit Bank v. Braddock Union Planing Mill Company, garnishee, 44 P. L. J. 193, Judge EWING says that he made inquiry of members of the bar, likely to know, and some of them associated with practitioners who antidated 1836 and continued in practice many years thereafter, and that he finds the rule and practice to have been in this county that until plea pleaded the garnishee was liable for all of defendants property that came to his hands before plea pleaded, but not thereafter One of the gentlemen of the bar of whom Judge EWING made this inquiry was CICERO HASBROUCK. If to be a successful lawyer he must be measured from a money standard then Hasbrouck was not successful, but if to be a successful lawyer is to master thoroughly every legal problem which comes before him then the records of the courts of Ailegheny county and the Pennsylvania state reports will bear ample testimony that he was a most successful lawyer. Mr. Hasbrouck was a trusted and beloved citizen, a kind and indulgent husband and father, and a christian gentleman. He died in the full belief of the consoling doctrine of a blessed immortality. He died full of years respected by all who knew him. His latter end was peaceful, he faded away day after day until he gently and quietly passed away from earth as was fitting, amid the quiet and stillness of the holy Sabbath morning. "So fades a summer cloud away; So sinks the gale when storms are oer; SHARES in a joint-stock association are held, in Re Jones (N. Y. (60 L. R. A. 476, to be properly dealt with as personalty in applying the laws providing a transfer or succession tax, although the property of the association is real estate. MERE failure of a landlord to comply with his agreement to make repairs on the leased premises is held, in Thompson v. Clemens (Md.) 60 L. R. A. 580, not to render him liable for personal injuries suffered by a member of the tenant's family because of want of repair. AN ordinance limiting the speed of trains of an interestate railway which carries United States mail to 10 miles an hour within the corporate limits of the municipality, which is passed for the safety of the public and the protection of life and property, is held, in Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Carlinville (Ill.) 60 L. R. A. 391, not to be void as imposing an unreasonable restriction upon interstate com merce and the speedy transportation of the mail. Pittsburgh Legal Journal Martin Quenten, for value received, sold, assigned, transferred and set over to his wife, Margaretta Quenten, the plaintiff herein, her heirs and assigns, all his right, title, interest and claim, of, in and to the contract between himself and wife upon the one part and the East Pittsburgh Improvement Company on the other part, referred to in the preceding finding, and authorized and directed defendant to deliver a deed for Court of Common Pleas No. 2, the premises "to and in the name" of plain ALLEGHENY COUNTY. QUENTEN v. EAST PITTSBURG Contract for purchase of real estate-Assignment signs," a certain lot of ground, equity will enforce a bill for specific performance in favor of the wife when it appears that for value received the husband had assigned to his wife in proper form his right, title and interest in the contract of sale and the balance of the purchase money had been paid by the plaintiff out of her own earnings and that of her sons. No. 602 July T., 1903. tiff. Third. That the entire consideration provided for in the articles of agreement above referred to has been paid to the defendant company, and the plaintiff has demanded from the company a deed to her individually for the premises described. That the defendant company has made and executed a deed to plaintiff and her husband jointly for the premises mentioned in the articles of agreement above referred to, which plaintiff refuses to accept. Fourth. That the plaintiff's husband, Martin Quenten, is a man of intemperate habits; that no part of the consideration paid for the lots above referred to was contributed by him; that the same was paid for out of the earnings of the plaintiff and her Opinion by FRAZER, P. J. Filed October three sons; that Martin Quenten, shortly 7, 1903. after executing the transfer of his interest in the property to his wife, committed an The bill in this case was filed for the pur-offense against the laws of this commonpose of compelling specific performance of a wealth, left the county, and at present his contract for the sale of real estate. From the bill, answer and proofs we find the following facts: FINDINGS OF FACT. First. The defendant, a corporation created under the laws of this commonwealth by articles of agreement dated the 29th day of May, 1899, agreed to sell and convey to the plaintiff and her husband, Martin Quenten, "their heirs or assigns," a certain lot of ground situate in the borough of East Pittsburgh, being lot No. 11, in block No. 34, of the plan of Brinton, recorded in the recorder's office of Allegheny county in plan book 11, page 146, for the consideration of $650, payable $64 in cash, and the balance in forty equal monthly payments with interest. Second. That by assignment in writing dated May 28, 1903, and duly acknowledged, whereabouts are unknown. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 1. Under the provisions of the agreement of May 27, 1899, defendant contracted to sell and convey to Martin Quenten and Margaretta Quenten "their heirs or assigns," the lot of ground in controversy. By the assignment of May 28, 1903, Martin Quenten, for value received, sold, assigned, transferred and set over to Margaretta Quenten all his "right, title, interest and claim," of, in and to the property, and authorized the defendant company to execute and deliver a deed for the premises to his wife. This he undoubtedly had a right to do, and by so doing it seems clear to us his wife became the owner of the entire property and entitled to receive a deed therefor in her own name, upon payment to the defendant company the entire purchase money, which she has done. The assignment being absolute and unconditional we see no reason why plaintiff may not maintain a bill in her own name to enforce performance. 2. That plaintiff is entitled to specific performance as prayed for. Let a decree be drawn accordingly. For defendant, Dalzell, Scott & Gordon. begining of this section, he made a final settlement and payment of the said indebtedness, at which time he paid to the defendant the sum of seven hundred fifty-six dollars and sixty-two cents ($756.62). While the defendant company is permitted, as before stated, to charge and receive as compensation for money loaned a greater sum than at the rate of six per cent per annum, yet in doing so it must comply with certain rules and conditions, one of Court of Common Pleas No. 3. which is a provision of an act of assembly ALLEGHENY COUNTY. POWNALL v. THE GERMAN NATIONAL BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF PITTSBURG. regulating such corporations as the defendant company, requiring the money loaned by it to be bid therefor by its members in open meeting. It seems that in this case, as the testimony shows, no bid was ever made in open meetBuilding and Loan Association-Right to col-ing, or in writing, or in any maner, for the lect premium-Money loaned without bid- money loaned to the plaintiff, and the plainRecovery back of usury. tiff and the defendant must therefore be con A building and loan association lent money with-sidered as occupying the positions of ordiout any bid being made for the money. Held, that it was not entitled to interest or premium exceeding six per cent. The amount paid on final settlement over and above legal interest could be recovered by suit brought within six months. No. 627 May T., 1902. Opinion by KENNEDY, P. J. Filed November 13, 1903. This action is for recovery back of usurious interest alleged to have been paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. The defendant is a building and loan association and under certain rules and requirements, if complied with, is allowed to receive as interest and premiums for money loaned an amount greater than at the rate of six per cent per annum. On or about the 27th of March, 1894, the plaintiff borrowed from the defendant the sum of eighteen hundred dollars ($1,800) for which he gave as security a mortgage upon real estate, and after the obtaining of said loan he paid interest thereon at the rate of six per cent per annum, and in addition thereto a premium of nine dollars ($9) per month for the space or term of ninety-one months, and during this term he made payments from time to time on account of the principal, until on or about the 9th of November, 1901, less than six months before the nary debtor and creditor, and if a greater sum has been paid than would amount to the principal of the debt and interest at the rate of six per cent per annum, it can be recov ered back, if the suit is brought within six months of the final payment. There is no denial by the defendant company that the sum of eight hundred nineteen dollars ($819) as premiums and in excess of interest at the rate of six per cent per annum was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant, and it is not denied that this action was final settlement and payment of the said inwas brought within six months after the debtedness. Plaintiff was therefore entitled to binding instructions. A mistake, however, was made in instructing the jury to find for the full amount of the plaintiff's claim, to-wit, $819 with interest, for the reason that the amount paid at the final settlement on the 9th of November, 1901, was the sum of $756.62, and a greater sum than the amount paid at that time could not be recovered back. ten days a stipulation that he will accept in If, therefore, the plaintiff will file within full payment of the verdict in this case the sum of $756.62 with interest thereon from the 9th of November, 1901, a new trial in this case is refused; otherwise a new trial granted. For plaintiff, Morton Hunter. |