Originally heard in the District Court of Allegheny County.

This was a feigned issue, under the Sheriff's Interpleader Act, in which Samuel Duff was claimant and plaintiff and R. W. Pier defendant. The issue was formed August 9th 1862.

Pier, the defendant, having recovered a judgment against one John Lyon, issued an execution against him, under which the sheriff, on the 24th of July 1862, levied on three rafts of lumber lying in the Allegheny river.  Duff claimed that the lumber belonged to him, under a sale from Lyon.

Lyon, the defendant in the execution, was the owner of timber land in Clarion county, on which he had a saw-mill; he testified that the lumber was cut from his land, and
sawed at his mill in partnership, as to the sawing, between himself and his son-in-law, Jacob Mong.  The boards were Duff's (the claimant) as soon as they were sawed, in payment to Duff for money and provisions furnished by him to witness, to enable him to carry on his business: the amount of his indebtedness to Duff was about $1200.  The lumber was given into the possession of Mong, who ran it to Pittsburg, where witness gave possession to Duff, whose name he marked on it at his request:  this was done before the levy. Mong left witness in charge of his interest in the lumber. Witness had delivered the lumber to Duff in Clarion county at a place designated by Duff.  The lumber was rafted to Pittsburg by Lyon and Mong, "dropped down to Heath, Duff & Co.'s mill" in Pittsburg:  witness took charge of it exclusively as Mong's agent:  witness sold some of the lumber as the property of Duff & Mong, and paid the proceeds to them.

Judgment affirmed.

Lyon and Mong owned lumber in partnership. Lyon sold his interest to Duff, and the lumber was marked "Duff & Mong." Lyon, as the agent of Mong, continued to take charge of his interest in the lumber. It was no error to leave to the jury the question of Duff's exclusive possession. Duff could not have excluded Mong or his agent from the concurrent possession of the lumber. After the sale, Duff moved the lumber, marked as his and Mong's, to his own mill. He thus gave all the notice of his title to an individual half that could be reasonably required.

F. K. Duff, a son of claimant, testified:  The rafts were first landed above the mill, and possession delivered to him as agent of the claimant; the lumber was marked "Duff &
Mong;" the delivery was ten days before the levy, but the lumber was not at the claimant's landing during all that time; witness put cables on them.  The claimant gave evidence also that the lumber was put on his books to the credit of Lyon.

The defendant gave evidence for the purpose of showing that the lumber was in the possession of Lyon at the time of the levy.

He also proposed to prove by witnesses whom he called, "that from the time John Lyon brought the lumber in controversy to Pittsburg, up to the date of the levy, and afterwards, while in custody and care of the lumber, he declared, repeatedly, that it belonged to him."  "What declarations, if any, John Lyon made, from the time he brought the lumber there, on the 27th of June, up to the time he left, as to the ownership of this lumber."  "The declarations of John Lyon, made from the time he brought the lumber to Pittsburg, up to the time of the levy, and afterwards, and while he was in custody and charge of the lumber, as to his ownership of it, and this for the purpose of rebutting the testimony of John Lyon as to the capacity he acted in, while here in charge of the lumber."

Originally heard in the Court of Common Pleas of Clarion County.

This was an action of assumpsit by The County of Armstrong against The County of Clarion, commenced October 30th 1869, for contribution under the following
circumstances: --

At Rockport Mills there is a public bridge over Red Bank creek which is the dividing line between Armstrong county and Clarion county, the bridge is consequently to be maintained at the joint expense of the two counties.  In 1860 the commissioners of both counties received notice that the bridge was out of repair; they made a joint examination of it, and directed some slight repairs which were done at the joint expense of the two counties.  Not long afterwards the bridge broke down whilst John A. Humphrey was crossing with a two-horse wagon and severely injured him.  To March Term 1862, he brought an action for negligence against the county of Armstrong.  The commissioners of that county gave notice of the bringing of the suit to the commissioners of Clarion, and called on them to assist in its defence, which was not done.  A verdict was recovered December 16th 1868 against Armstrong for $1100, which, with the costs amounting in all to $1597.31, Armstrong County paid.  The commissioners of Clarion were called on to contribute their proportion to this payment, which they declined to do.

Judgment reversed, and venire de novo awarded.

Originally heard in the Court of Common Pleas of Clarion County.

William Gardner and Ellen his wife in her right, brought an action of replevin May 22d 1867, against John Musser, for one mare, one horse, one cow, one wagon and one set of harness, of the value of $300.  The defendant pleaded "property."  The allegation was that the property, which had been sold by the husband to the defendant, belonged to the wife.

On the trial, December 9th 1869, the plaintiff, without proof or affidavit, was allowed to amend by striking the husband's name from the
record, and a bill of exceptions was sealed.

The court, also under exception, admitted a decree of September 7th 1867, making the plaintiff a feme sole trader.  The evidence was admitted against the defendant's objection and a bill of exceptions sealed.  There was evidence that the wagon was bought by Gardner and paid for by wood cut on the plaintiff's place; that Gardner brought nothing when he was married; that the plaintiff owned what was on the place.

The plaintiff offered to testify, she was objected to, admitted and a bill of exceptions sealed.

The verdict was for the plaintiff [Gardner] for $102.95.  Judgment affirmed.

She testified that Gardner owned nothing when she married him; she owned the stock on the farm when he came there; also that some was raised on her farm, and by various changes and trades (some by Gardner), the property replevied was hers; she also testified as to his desertion of her. There was evidence also that a warrant
had been out to arrest Gardner, and that he could not be found.

She gave in evidence a deed, dated March 28th 1842, to her by her unmarried name, Ellen Patton, for 115 acres of land.  She had married Gardner sixteen or seventeen years previously; then owned a cow and calf and money at interest, eight or ten sheep and household furniture; when any one sued Gardner he said he did not own anything.  She proved the purchase by defendant from Gardner of the articles replevied and that the plaintiff claimed them as his.  Gardner was not then living with his wife.  The plaintiff offered to prove declarations of Gardner that the property belonged to his wife.

Originally heard in the Court of Common Pleas of Clinton County.

This was an action of assumpsit, on a promissory note, brought February 9th 1870, by A. A. Stewart against E. W. Bigoney.  The single question raised by the assignments of error was the admission of the deposition of J. B. Williams, taken on the part of the plaintiff.

On the 13th of July 1870, the plaintiff entered an ex parte rule to take depositions on ten days' notice.  He afterwards gave the following notice: --

"To Jesse Merrill, Esq., attorney for defendant.
"Take notice, that in pursuance of a rule of court, of which the above is a copy, the deposition of A. A. Stewart et al., witnesses, to be read in evidence on the trial of said cause, will be taken between the hours of 8 o'clock a. m. and 11 o'clock p. m., on Wednesday, the 3d day of August, A. D. 1870, at the office of Theo. S. Wilson, in the borough of Clarion, Clarion county, in the state of Pennsylvania, before the said Theo. S. Wilson, Esq., or some other person competent to take the same at the said time and place."

Judgment affirmed.

On the trial, before P. J. Mayer, the plaintiff offered in evidence the following, viz.: --

"Depositions of witnesses produced, sworn, or affirmed and examined by me, the 3d day of August, A. D. 1870, at the office of Theo. S. Wilson, at Clarion, between the hours of 8 o'clock a. m. and 11 p. m., by virtue of the annexed rule," &c. * * *

"A. A. Stewart sworn, deposeth and saith," &c. * * *

"J. B. Williams sworn, deposeth and saith," &c. * * *

"I hereby certify that the above witnesses were duly qualified and examined at the time and place stated in the above caption, and subscribed their depositions in my presence, and that the examination of said witnesses was closed by me at 8 1/2 o'clock p. m. of said day, and up to that time there was no one appeared as attorney for defendant to cross-examine the witnesses, at which time the witnesses and myself retired from the place of examination, and I did not go back that night.
"In testimony, &c.
"Frank M. Arnold, J. P."

Originally heard in the Court of Common Pleas of Clarion County.

This was an ejectment commenced August 9th 1866, by Philip Cook against John Cook and George N. Berlin, for 108 acres of land.  The case was tried August 24th 1870.

The plaintiff's title was as follows:  John Cook, his brother, one of the defendants, by article dated the 1st of August 1837, contracted with the agents of the Bingham estate for the land in dispute for the consideration of $162.75.  The article was renewed by another dated November 1st 1849, for the consideration of $282.37, the debt and interest due on the original article.  An execution for $103 was issued against John Cook on the 20th of December 1852, and his land extended at $50 per annum, and accepted by John Cook; on failure to pay the rent, the land was sold under a venditioni, to Philip Cook for $375, and the sheriff's deed acknowledged December 8th 1854.  On the 10th of February 1865, John Cook receipted to the sheriff for $131.93, the surplus from the sale after payment of debt and costs.  On the 10th of June 1863, Philip Cook paid Judge Campbell, representing the Bingham estate, $170.98 on John Cook's article.  George N. Berlin, the other defendant, paid $390.93 to Judge Campbell, that being the whole amount then due on John Cook's article, and a deed was delivered to Berlin, March 3d 1866, "subject to the equity of John Cook, Jr., and his vendee Philip Cook, as specified in the article of John Cook, Jr., with the Bingham estate."  Before bringing suit, Philip Cook tendered to Berlin $400 in payment of the amount due on the contract.

The defendant, John Cook, alleged that Philip had bought in the property at sheriff's sale for him. He testified that when the land was about to be sold by the sheriff, he asked Philip to buy in the property for him, and Philip agreed to do so; a number of persons were at the sheriff's sale.  John Zents was bidding and John Cook told him his arrangement with Philip; John and Zents went to Philip, who told Zents he was buying for John, Zents then said he would not interfere when one brother was buying for another; the land was struck down to Philip for $376; John testified that he did work for Philip, which he agreed should go towards paying for the land; also, that he paid Philip several sums of money on the same account, and that Philip was otherwise indebted to him.  Philip gave John his note for the surplus at the sheriff's sale.  John cleared after the sale about 21 acres, enlarged the house and built a barn.  Philip never claimed the property till the suit was brought.  Zents testified that he went to the sale intending to buy the property if he could have got it for $700 with a clear title; it was then worth $1000 or $1200.  He was informed substantially as stated by John Cook, the arrangement between John and Philip, and he did not bid any more.

C. E. Beaman was a bidder at the sale, but stopped on learning that Philip was bidding for John.  William Ray testified in the same manner.  There was evidence that after the sale Philip said the property was John's.

What was the agreement between the parties?  This is a question for the jury.  If Philip Cook is believed, he did make the purchase under a promise to let John remain upon the land for some time.  He has let him live upon it since 1854.

Judgment reversed, and venire de novo awarded.

John Cook entered upon the premises in controversy under an article of agreement with the trustees of the Bingham estate, dated the 1st of August 1837, and on the 1st of November 1849, by an article of agreement in writing from the said trustees, which was a renewal of the former one, purchased the same for the consideration of $282.37.  He cleared land, made valuable improvements, and with his family resided thereon at the commencement of this suit, on the 9th August 1866.

On the 7th August 1852, a judgment was obtained against John Cook for $103, on which an alias fi. fa. was issued, and levied upon this real estate, extended at a
rent of $50 per annum, and accepted by John Cook, and upon his failure to pay, a vend. exponas was issued upon which this land was about to be sold.  John sent for
his brother, Philip Cook, to come over and buy the property in for John Cook at the sheriff's sale, which he did for $375; the surplus money, after paying debt and costs, John receipted for to the sheriff, but did not receive it.  From the 1st December 1854 to 9th August 1866, John Cook remained in undisturbed possession of the land, paid the taxes, cleared land, built a barn, and cut timber thereon, which he had manufactured into lumber on the mill of Philip Cook, the plaintiff.

On the trial of the cause John Cook testified:   "My property was up for sale on that judgment; I had some money, but not enough to pay the debt; I asked Philip to come over and buy the property for me; I wanted him to furnish a part of the money for a time, until I would get my money from Bethlehem; he agreed to come over and buy the property.  He came; he was here two or three days; Zents was a bidder; William Ray came up to myself and Philip, and asked if the property had to be sold; Philip told Ray that he was buying the property in for me; Zents was bidding, and I went and told him my arrangement with Philip; he said if that was the case he would not bid on it.  We went to Philip, and Zents asked him; Philip told him he was buying it in for me; then Zents said he would not interfere where one brother was buying for another.  The property was knocked down to Philip for $375."  Zentz, Beaman, Ray, and Dunkle all agree as to these facts, and if these witnesses, counting John Cook, are believed, then John Cook's story is true, and fixes Philip with a trust for John.

Philip Cook, on 10th June 1863, paid the trustees of the Bingham estate $170.38 on the John Cook, Jr., article, and on the 19th February 1866 George N. Berlin paid $390.93, the balance in full of the John Cook article, and received a deed, "subject to the equity of John Cook, Jr., and his vendee, Philip Cook, as specified in the article of John Cook, Jr., with the Bingham estate."

Originally heard in the Court of Common Pleas of Clarion County.

In the distribution of the proceeds of the sheriff's sale of the personal property of John P. Cook.

The records of the Court of Common Pleas of Clarion County and the endorsements on the writs of execution showed that judgments had been entered against John P. Cook and executions issued on them as follows: --

John R. Kron, $298.98.  Entered May 8th 1871.  Execution placed in sheriff's hands same day at 6 1/2 o'clock, a. m.
John R. Kron, $298.28.  Entered May 8th 1871.  Execution placed in sheriff's hands same day at 8 o'clock, a. m.
Charles Kauffman.  Entered March 27th 1871.  Placed in sheriff's hands May 8th 1871, at 8 3/4 o'clock, a. m.

The sheriff sold the goods, and James B. Knox, Esq., was appointed auditor, on the application of Kron, to distribute the fund arising from the sale.  The fund was not
brought into court; Kauffman did not assent to the appointment of the auditor, nor had he notice of the application.  The amount, after deducting all costs, including those of the audit, was $399.85.

Kauffman appealed to the Supreme Court and assigned for error the confirmation of the report of the auditor.

The decree is reversed at the costs of the appellee, and the record is remitted to the court below, to be proceeded in according to law.

Originally heard in the District Court of Philadelphia.

Refers to Humphreys v. Armstrong Co., 6 P.F. Smith 204, in which the county was made responsible for the acts and omissions of the commissioners in relation to an unsafe bridge which fell with the plaintiff's wagon and team.  The bridge being on the line of two counties and maintained by both, it was afterwards held that Armstrong could recover contribution from Clarion county, notwithstanding the case was one of negligence.