ter for the parties to agree that whatever ac- burg, Penna.," said lodge being subordinate count is to be had should be taken along to "Grand Lodge Free and Accepted Ancient with the other proceedings for determining York Masons for the state of Pennsylvania." the value of the land, is a matter which the parties will have to decide for themselves. We are of opinion, therefore, that a decree of partitton must be refused, and that if the plaintiffs desire it, an account must be stated between the parties for the use and occupation of the land for the time indicated, and that the costs of the whole proceeding should be paid by the parties in proportion to their respective interests in the land. Let a decree be drawn accordingly. Second. That said organization of York Masons has for a number of years existed as a body distinct from, and independent of, a capitol Masonic organization called "Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of the State of Pennsylvania." Third, That whilst maintaining such separate existence said King Solomon lodge acquired the lease of lodge room and personal effects described in the second and third paragraphs of the plaintiffs' bill. Fourth. That the defendants, constituting For defndant, Reed, Smith, Shaw & Beal. a majority of the members of said King Court of Common Pleas, WASHINGTON COUNTY. SKINNER et al. v. BYRD et al. Equity-Masonic lodges-Severence. Plaintiffs and defendants being members of a subordinate Masonic lodge acquired a lease of a lodge room, regalia, warrant, etc., when a majority of said subordinate lodge by resolution severed its connection therewith and affiliated themselves with another Masonic organization entirely distinct and indedendent from their former lodge. The new organization being in the majority took possession of the lodge room, regalia, warrant, etc., and refused to surrender them to the parent lodge. Held, that the parent lodge was entitled to the lease of lodge room, etc., by paying rent, etc., advanced by one of the defendants. No. 1375. In Equity. Bill to restrain defendants from use and occupation of lodge room and personal effects belonging to King Solomon Lodge No. 68, Free and Accepted Ancient York Masons of Canonsburg, Pa. Solomon lodge, has by resolution severed its. connection with the York Masons and attached it to the other body. And having passed such resolution against the protest of the plaintiffs, the majority of said King Solomon Lodge No. 68 took and maintained control of the hall, "warrant" issued by the Grand Lodge to said King Solomon Lodge No. 68, and other property of said lodge, and are now in possession of said "warrant" and using said hall and property for the purpose of conducting a Masonic lodge in connection with and subject to the jurisdiction of the new organization to which they have attached themselves, and have thus hindered the plaintiffs in holding meetings of said lodge and excluded them from the use of said property for the purposes of a lodge of York Masons. Fifth. That neither the plaintiffs or the defendants in all of the proceedings in their meetings held relating to the change proposed in affiliations or in opposition thereto, proceeded according to the then existing bylaws of the said King Solomon Lodge No. 68. fendants named in the bill, has individually Sixth. That Robert Byrd, one of the depaid for a portion of the furniture purchased by said King Solomon lodge from McNary & Vance, to wit, $52; for regalia, $14, and for rent of hall to the date of defendants, withdrawal, $8.33 1-3, and that said amounts personally paid by said Byrd be repaid or secured to him by the said King Solomon Lodge No. 68, and that the hall and personal property and effects described in plaintiffs' bill, together with its "warrant" be turned over by the said defendants to the plaintiffs representing the said King Solomon Lodge No. 68, and that the defendants pay the costs of this proceeding. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The plaintiffs are entitled to the relief prayed for in their bill under the facts as found. OPINION. Filed January 29, 1904. The parties plaintiffs and defendants have been and were up to sometime in October, 1903, members of the same voluntary association, formed for social, benevolent and fraternal purposes, under the name of King Solomon Lodge No. 68 Free and Accepted Ancient York Masons of Canonsburg, at about which time factional disputes arose among the members constituting the same, resulting in a majority throwing off their allegiance with the parent lodge and affiliating with another body of Masonry. It is conceded by the members of both, that affiliation with these two branches is incompatible, as it is also conceded that any member or members may properly change its allegiance from the one to the other; this being conceded, the only question left is to whom belongs the property bought and used by the King Solomon Lodge No. 68? Under the facts found and the law on this point, we are bound to decree the property in dispute to the plaintiffs; Gorman v. O'Connor, 155 Pa. 239; Winebrenner v. Colder, 43 Pa. 244; Washington v. White, 44 P. L. J. 388; Bose v. Christ, 193 Pa. 13; Krecker v. Shirley, 163 Pa. 524. In doing this we have attached one of the conditions, by consent, to be performed by the plaintiffs co-temperaneous with the delivery of the property to them by the defendants, that they pay or cause to be paid or secured to the defendant Byrd the sum of $74.33 1-3, shown to have been paid by him out of his own moneys for the use of the order before the split in lodge. It is immaterial for the purpose of deciding this case under the many decisions governing the ownership of property purchased from the dues of the membership for a voluntary association of this character, and where a contest arises as to which faction shall be entitled to hold the same, to pass upon the irregularity shown in both factions in making the transition. If it be said certain of the plaintiffs were then "not financial" it is shown there was a suspension of this by-law by the order permitting them to vote before division, claimed by one side to have been general, as the minutes read, and contended by the other, for one meeting only; while the plaintiffs contend they were not notified of the meeting as the by-laws direct, at which the defendants decided to withdraw their allegiance from King Solomon lodge. The proceedings of the lodge. were so conducted and kept that it would be difficult to determine, if we were called upon to do so, which faction excelled the other in irregularities in this respect. Now, January 29, 1904, it is ordered that this adjudication be filed and the parties interested notified, and if no exceptions are filed thereto, as required by the rule, let a decree be prepared sec. reg. For plaintiffs, Braden & Campbell. For defendants, Parker & McIlvaine. [From Harry Russell Myers, Esq., Washington, Pa.] Book Notice. STREET RAILWAY REPORTS. Reporting the Electric Railway and Street Railway Decisions of the Federal and State Courts of the United States. Edited by FRANK B. GILBERT of the Albany Bar. MATTHEW BENDER, Law Publisher, Albany, N. Y. Price, $5.00 per volume. Volume one of this new series of reports on an important and growing subject has just been issued. It is the intention to report in this series all cases relating to the subject of street railways, including their organization, taxation, franchises and liability for injury to passengers, pedestrians, vehicles and the like. The reports cover all cases on the subject decided in the Federal Courts and the higher courts of the different states. It is estimated that these decisions can be reported in two volumes a year. The first volume is well edited. The annotations comprise complete and exhaustive notes on the important topics. Nearly every case is supplemented with a note discussing the leading principle involved therein, and citing many prior cases. Assault With Intent to Commit Murder. Recent Bankruptcy Decisions. In re Keet, 11 Am. B. R. 117, it was held that in the interest of the general creditors, the bankruptcy court in its discretion may order a sale of the bankrupt's real estate, free and clear of liens, although the incumbrances thereon equal the value of the prop-. erty. As a case of first impression Judge ARCHBALD, in Re Coddington (Middle District, Pa.) 11 Am. B. R. 122, has been that where prior to bankruptcy a debtor voluntarily transfers to another, as a preference, goods which are recovered back by the trustee and converted into money, the bankrupt is not entitled to his exemptions out of the proceeds of sale. A most unique and diabolical plan for Where a composition is effected, a bankcommitting murder by means of an infernal rupt may be heard to object to the allowance. machine was considered by the Supreme of a claim offered for proof after the expiraCourt of Iowa in Stat v. Hoot, 94 Northwest- tion of the year, although he in good faith. ern Reporter, 564, while determing the ap- omitted it from his schedules. In re Lane, peal of the defendant, who was convicted of 11 Am. B. R. 136. assault with intent to murder, and sentenced to ten years in the penitentiary. Defendant and his wife were not happily married, and were not living together. It appeared that the wife was in the habit of opening letters received at her residence addressed to the husband, and forwarding those which she deemed important. One of the letters opened by her purported to come from a woman in Chicago, and stated that the presents which had been given to her by the defendant had been returned to him, by express, for reasons known to him. The same day a box arrived from Chicago, addressed to the defendant, apparently by the same person who had written the letter. The defendant's wife opened the package, and found a highly polished box, with a handle on each end. Underneath one of these handles was a drawer, and in it a small hole, by means of which the drawer could be pulled out. She opened the drawner a short distance, when there was a sharp explosion. The explosion did no damage, and the box was turned over to an officer, who opened the drawer by means of a long string attached thereto. A terrific explosion followed. The evidence showed that the box had been purchased by the defendant in Omaha, that dynamite had been purchased by him in another city, and that he was the person who expressed the box from Chicago. The court held that any unlawful acts on the part of the wife in opening the letter and package, and on the part of the express company in delivering it to a party other than the addressee, were immaterial, that the sole point was the intention of the defendant in sending the box, and that it was clearly shown that this intention was to cause the death of his wife. The conviction was sustained. THE title to lands under tide waters is held, in Shepard's Point Land Co. v. Atlantic Hotel (N. C.) 61 L. R. A. 937, to be vested in the respective states, and to be subject to grant by them to individuals. Where money due and owing to the bankrupt at the time of filing his petition is thereafter received by him and honestly applied to the payment of a debt, he is not guilty, under section 29b, of knowingly and fraudulently concealing, while a bankrupt, of his estate in bankruptcy, even though the result of such payment is to advantage a creditor. United States v. Lowenstein, 11 Am. B. R. 134. The decision of the Fifth Circuit, Court of Appeals, in Reach v. Macon Grocery Co., 11 Am. B. R. 104, holding that where property is taken from the possession of one claiming to be the owner, without his consent, by a receiver in bankruptcy under an erroneous order, which the claimant successfully resists on appeal, he is entitled to a return of the property without charge of any kind against either it or him, is commendable both for its good sense and sound law. See, also, 10 Am. B. R. 396. Where it appears that on filing his petition the bankrupt had $348.02 in a bank account labelled as "Manager," but which he treated as his own property, adding indiscriminately his own and the money derived from real estate of an insurance company of which he was secretary and manager, paying therefrom money for taxes and repairs and his personal expenses, the trustee is entitled to an order requiring him to pay over $270 withdrawn and spent for his private purposes since the filing of his petition in bankruptcy. In re Kurtz, 11 Am. B. R. 129. up in the event of his death, but to leave it where it was until she needed it. The action was brought by the executor to recover the money, which the defendant had taken into her possession subsequent to her father's death; the contention being that the facts did not show an absolute gift, and that there had been no sufficient delivery. These contentions prevailed in the court below, but the Supreme Court of Oregon reverses this judgment, and holds for the defendant on both points. Where the act of bankruptcy charged in LIABILITY FOR REWARD OFFERED BY COMan involuntary proceeding is a transfer of The board of county commisreal estate by the alleged bankrupt while in- MISSIONERS. solvent to his brother, who is averred to be sioners offered a reward for the finding and a creditor, with intent to prefer him to the identification of a missing man, which reother creditors, and the weight of evidence ward was in excess of its legal power. The upon an issue made by a denial of the com-resolution was adopted in good faith at the mission of the act of bankruptcy charged is decidedly with the bankrupt, the testimory in support of the averment that the brother was a creditor being insufficient and it not appearing that the consideration paid was not the full value of the property, nor a mere device to give the transaction a proper appearance, a finding of the referee that the brother was creditor and the transfer preferential must be reversed, with costs against the petitioning creditors. In re Foster, 11 Am. B. R. 131. ers. GIFTS MADE IN APPREHENSION OF DEATH. regular meeting of the board, and was signed by the commissioners individually, and attested by the county auditor and published. The Supreme Court of Minnesota, in the case of Scheiber v. Von Orx, 92 Northwestern Reporter, 3, holds that the authorized inference to be drawn from such published resolution is that the board intended in its offiical capacity to create a public liability, and that this liability could not become the personal obligation of the individual com missioners. BATHHOUSE AS BAILEE FOR HIRE OF CUSTOMERS' VALUABLES. In the case of Waite v. Grubbe, 73 Pacific Nebraska has held, in the case of Bath Co. The Supreme Court of Reporter, 205, the validity of a gift made v. Allen, 92 Northwestern Reporter, 354, under the following circumstances was at that the keeper of a bathhouse is a bailee for tacked: The father of the defendant had hire of the valuables which customers may tolu her several times that he intended to deposit at their invitation in places provided make her a gift of money, because he had by them before using the baths, and that not done as much for her in the way of edu- they are therefore liable for the loss of said cation, etc., as he had for his other daught-property, even though no direct charge be One night during his last illness he stated that he had $10,000 buried in several places about the house, which he wanted to give to her, and that in the morning he would show her wher it was buried. He did this, and at the same time said: "I give this money to you. It is yours; but if I should get well and want some of it, would you let me have it?" to which she replied: "Yes, papa, if you get well you can have all of it. I'll give it back to you if you get well." He advised her not to dig the money made and paid for the case of said valuables. The court cites many interesting cases holding that whatever a person generally carries with him, and which must necessarily be laid aside in a store or other place while making and examining purchases, is presumed to be laid aside by the invitation to come and purchase, and that the case of the property would ordinarily be within the authority of the salesman assigned to wait upon the customer, and would be part of the transaction in which he is authorized to represent his employer. (1) There is no principle better settled than that the product of a gift which is the Trusts-Rents-Liability of Trustee-Co-bene-subject of a trust, whatever the form of the ficiary occupying premises. (1) A trustee for sale is liable for rents which accrue between the date of testator's death and the sale of the land. (2) Where one of the beneficiaries of the proceeds of sale occupies the land his co-beneficiaries' share of the rental value may be deducted from his No. 63 November Term, 1903. STATEMENT. corpus may be-whether real or personal estate-must be considered and treated as part of the estate for which the trustee is accountable. Interest on mortgages and dividends on stocks are familiar illustrations of such product: and rents are just as much within the reason of the principle. Nobody doubts that a trustee must account for profits which he has realized out of the investment of proceeds of the sale of real estate; and why not for rent which he has or ought to have realized out of the real estate itself before sale? The trustee can make no claim to The question involved in this case is whether or not where realty is to be con-it without a breach of trust; and the tenant verted under testamentary direction, the rental value in the meantime should be charged in the trustee's account and deducted from the share of one of the beneficiaries, who had occupied the premises, in the proceeds of sale? The facts are these: cannot change his relation as debtor to that of creditor; the source of the product is in either event the legatee's property; and logically so must the product be his; Leigh & Dalzell on Conversion, 48. This being so the trustee stands in the same relation to Mrs. Littell died in 1885 leaving a will in each. It must of course be conceded that which among other things she gave her the mere direction to sell does not of itself daughter Jennie (the executor) the "benefit" impose upon the trustee the burthen of show-, of a certain house for a period of seven (7) ing that he ought not be charged with rent; years; and at the end of that period directed for the exigency of the direction to sell does her to sell the property and divide the pro- not ordinarily contemplate, or justify a lease ceeds between her son James, John and in the meantime; and there may be immense Frank. The sale was not made until 1903; profits arising from use and occupation; but and in the meantime Frank Littell occupied where use and occupation are affirmatively the premises, the rental value of which was made to appear, the burthen of proof is $10 per month. The accountant charges shifted to his shoulders. The declaration of herself with the proceeds of sale, $2,060, the Act of February 24, 1834, that executors and claims credits, to which no objection is to whom authority is given to sell real estate made, amounting to $765; but as the rents shall hold the same interest in it, and have are not debited, exceptants seek to bring the same power over it for all purposes of them into distribution. sale, and remedy by entry, by action, or |