money should be applied first, to pay to ed to them for the purposes of paying exthe plaintiff $80 on each lot and balance penses, etc., in bank but were using it should be divided three eighths to the for their own purposes appeared from the plaintiffs and five-eighths to the defend- refusal of the payment of the check above ants. The agreement further provides stated, and (2) that the relationship befor leaving in the hands of the defendants tween the parties was that of principal a certain balance then due by them to and agent only, and that defendants have the plaintiff, amounting to some three no interest in the subject matter, and that thousand dollars, to be applied to ex- therefore the agency was revocable at penses to be thereafter incurred under any time at the pleasure of the plaintiffs. the agreement, these expenses to be ac counted for in each monthly statement, and that monthly statements should be revocation we think that if the agency Second. As to the alleged ground of was otherwise irrevocable the reasons alleged would not be sufficient to justify a rescission of it. furnished and monthly payments made; and it was further provided that if purchase money mortgages were taken they should be assigned in the proportion of Third. The real question in the case three eighths to the plaintiffs and five- is whether or not the contract between eighths to the defendants, and that this the parties gives the defendants any inagreement should continue in force for five years from January 10, 1902. Fourth. On or about June 10, 1904, the defendants furnished to the plaintiff's according to their agreement, a statement of the collections already made for the month of May, showing due to the p'aiutiffs the sum of $412.68, for which the defendants gave to the plaintiffs a check on the Monessen Savings and Trust Company. This check was sometime afterwards presented and payment was refused for the reason that the defendants had not sufficient funds in the bank to pay the same. The defendants' account of this mater is that they had an agree ment with the bank by which the bank was to honor their checks whether they had funds there or not, and that through the misuuderstanding of a clerk payment of the check was refused and the check was afterwards paid. terest or estate in the land therein described or, in other words, whether their interest. Upon a careful examination of power of sale was not coupled with an the contract between the parties we are unable to find anything in it which make s it different in legal effect from an ordinary employment of an agent to sell lands on commission. In the present case the commission is very large, being considerably more than one-half of the purchase money. We cannot see, however, that the amount of the compensation in any way affects the interpretation of the instrument. It has been held that an interest in the proceeds of sales as compensation for executing them is not such an Blackstone v. Buttermore, 53 Pa. 266. interest as makes the agency irrevocable; The only other question contained in the agreement relied upon by the defendants is the provision that the agreeFifth. On July 13, 1904, the plaintiffs ment is to continue in force for five years. served upon the defendants a notice of If this clause be looked upon as an agreerevocation of their agency, which is ment not to revoke for five years we are printed as exhibit "E" of the bill. The of opinion that it is governed by the case of defendants declined to recognize the re- Blackstone v. Buttermore, supra, where vocation and continued to make sales of it is said that in order to make an lots and make collections of purchase agreement for irrevocability contained in money upon lots already sold and de- a power to transact business for the beneclined to deliver up to the plaintiffs the fit of the principal binding on him there contracts of sale theretofore made by must be a consideration for it independent of the compensation to be rendered for the services to be performed." them. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. First The plaintiffs contend that they are justified in revoking the contract of the agency of the defendants; because (1) they claim that the fact that the defendants did not keep the moneys entrust The fact that the defendants have been at considerable expense in laying out the lands of the plaintiffs in lots, advertising the same and endeavoring to sell the same does not deprive the plaintiff of his power of withdrawing his lots from sale Tait, an inmate, from Philadelphia if he so desires or employing another County, of the State Hospital for the agent for the purpose if he so desires, but Insane at Norristown. does of course make the plaintiff liable to the defendants for all damages they may have sustained. John R. K. Scott for rule. We are of opinion, therefore, that the April 26, 1905. BEITLER, J.-Maragency of the defendants for the plaintiffs garet M. Tait was committed to the State for the sale of their lands above mention Hospital for the Insane at Norristown on ed was effectually revoked on July 13, July 24th, 1893. Since that time the 1904, and that the defendants thereafter County of Philadelphia has been paying had no right to continue to attempt to for her maintenance at the rate of $1.75 make sales of the plaintiff's land or to per week. On September 24, 1904, this collect purchase money owing to them Court made an order on the defendant under the agreement, but were bound to that he pay the County of Philadelphia surrender the papers in their hands and the sum of $1.75 for the maintenance and to account in regard to the moneys al- support of his wife. This order the deready received by them. The plaintiffs fendant has never complied with. The are, therefore, entitled to a decree enjoin- question before the Court is, can he be ing the defendants from making sales of attached for failure to obey the Court's any of the lots of the plaintiffs, from col- order, or is the city confined to suits from lecting or attempting to collect moneys time to time to collect from him the due under contracts of sale heretofore moneys owing? made of such lands and from pretending The Act of May 21, 1889, Sec. 1, P. to act as agents of the plaintiffs under the L. 258, provides that "the expenses of agreements above mentioned, and for an the care and treatment of the indigent account of the moneys paid out by the insane in the State Hospital for the Indefendants for the plaintiffs since the sane is hereby fixed at the uniform rate making of the agreement, and that the of $1.75 per week for each person, indefendants deliver to the plaintiffs all contracts entered into by them whether cluding clothing, chargeable to the rein their own names or the names of the spective counties or poor districts from which such insane shall come, and the plaintiffs as agent for the plaintiffs for excess over said $1.75 shall be paid by the sale of lots in the said plan, which the State." are in their possession or control, and that the defendants pay the costs. Practice and jurisdiction, Q. S.-Order on husband to support wife at State Hospital for Insane-Attachment. An order of the Court of Quarter Sessions upon a husband to pay the County of Philadel phia the sum of $1.75 per week for the maintenance and support of his wife, who had been committed to the State Hospital for the Insane at Norristown, may be enforced by attachment. Acts of April 13, 1867, Sec. 1, P. L. 78, and May 21, 1889, Sec. 1, P. L. 258, considered. an It is under this Act that the charge of $1.75 is made by the trustees of the hospital against the County of Philadelphia for the care and treatment of the wife of the defendant. Rule on defendant to show cause why It is not apparent why a husband, attachment should not issue for whose wife is in the State Hospital, and failure to obey the Court's order that de- for whose care and treatment the county fendant pay $1.75 per week to the De- is compelled by law to pay $1.75 per partment of Charities and Correction for week, should not, under this Act, be orthe support of his wife, Margaret M. dered to pay at least that much for her "comfortable support and maintenance." the sale and delivery by the defendant and The object of proceedings in the deser- the binding force of the ordinance which tion court is to compel husbands, fathers affected only acts within the territorial and children to care for wives, children limits of the City of McKeesport. and parents, and thus prevent them from becoming charges on the public. It is undisputed that the milk (the subject of this prosecution) was sold and delivered by the defendant to Jacob Firestone under a written contract executed by them, the relative portion of which is as follows: ARTICLE of AGREEMENT. That the order of the Court for the payment of such sum as the Court thinks proper may be enforced by attachment cannot be doubted; Com. v. James, 142 Pa. 32; Com. v. Baldwin v. 149 Pa. 305 In the case before the Court, the hus band has been ordered to pay for the Made and entered into this 16th day of support of his wife the sum of $1 75 per June, 1905, by and between Wm. P. Mayweek. He has refused to make the pay- hugh, of the Borough of Elizabeth, ment. The Court making the order was County of Allegheny and State of Pennsatisfied of his ability to pay. The evi- sylvania, party of the first part, and Jacob dence taken upon the rule shows that he Firestone, of the City of McKeesport, is still able io pay the sum ordered to be County aforesaid, party of the second paid. He is liable to be attached for his refusal to comply with the Court's order. The rule is, therefore, made absolutė. part. Whereas the party of the first part has entered into an agreement with the party of the second part whereby the said party of the first part binds himself to deliver at the Borough of Elizabeth on board cars freight prepaid, for and during the period of one (1) year from the date of the execution of this agreement, thirty gallons or more, not to exceed in quantity one hundred (100) gallons of milk upon the terms hereinafter specified. Now this agreement witnesseth, That the party of the second part hereby agrees to pay to the party of the first part for said milk so sold and delivered at the rate of fifteen cents ($. 15) per gallon for every gallon sold and delivered as aforesaid from the 14th day of June, 1904, to the 1st day of November, 1904. John C. Haymaker for plaintiff. Jos. F. Mayhugh for defendant. January 17, 1905. BROWN, J.-On January 9, 1905, J. J. Murphy, meat and miik inspector of the City of McKeesport, made an information before the Mayor of The delivery by the defendant to the said City, charging William P. Mayhugh railway company (at the Borough of with selling and delivering adulterated Elizabeth) consigned for transportation and unwholesome milk in said City in to Jacob Firestone of the City of McKeesviolation of "City Ordinance Common port was a delivery to and vested title in Council Bill No. 12." A warrant issued; Firestone; Dannemiller v. Kirkpatrick, the defendant was arrested, and at the 201 Pa. 218; Garbacht v. Commonwealth, hearing the Mayor adjudged him guilty 96 Pa. 449. of the offence charged and sentenced him to pay a fine of $50 and the costs of pro secution; and in default of payment the defendant to be committed to the Alle gheny County Workhouse for thirty days From this judgment the deiendant appealed. In support of the appeal several technical grounds are raised; but the only one we pass upon (sufficient in itself to warrant a reversal of judgment) relates to As the situs of the defendant's act (the sale and delivery) was beyond the territorial limits of the City of McKeesport, his act was not a violation of the ordinance, for the ordinance was limited to the City of McKeesport and of necessity had no binding force beyond the city limits. Judgment reversed and restitution awarded. INDEX OF CASES REPORTED IN THIS VOLUME. The syllabi are numbered consecutively. The black figures refer to these syllabi. ACCOUNT, 75. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, 215. ACTIONS. CAUSE, 113-115. 1. The rule that for a joint tort there can 2. To sustain a joint action of tort there RIGHT OF, 118. ACTS OF ASSEMBLY, 121-123. 1794, April 22, 3 Sm. L. 177... 1854, April 18 1855, April 26, P. L. 328. 1860, March 31, P. L. 427. 1883, May 2, P. L. 320. con- set 3. An affidavit of defense should 278 4. An affidavit of defense in a suit to re- 278 311 119 5. In a scire facias sur mortgage an affi- FRAUD. 6. In a statement of the amount due on ASSIGNMENT. AGE, 72, 336. AGENCY, 41, 74, 169. REVOCATION. 14. The inadequacy of price, the appar- 7. A, the owner of certain land, made an 16. So much of the share as is left after paying the attachment must be awarded to to prevent the principal from revoking the 9. An agreement of an agency, which is AGREEMENT, 187-192, 248. SEAL. ATTACHMENT, 13-16, 47, 61. COSTS. 17. After the costs of audit have been 18. As the costs of audit were incurred by FINDINGS. 10. An alderman's seal showing the 11. An alderman's seal must show his 12. The insufficiency of the alderman's ALIMONY, 107-109. ALMSHOUSE, 280-283. Said BAIL, 172, 322, 325. BANKRUPTCY. STATE LAWS. 21. Appellant, a judgment creditor of an AMENDMENT, 59, 63, 65, 89, 115, 118, 208, insolvent, under the Act of June 4, 1901, P. 213, 316. APPEAL, 51-56. L. 404, issued an execution against the in- |