The Jeffersonian. [volume] (Stroudsburg, Pa.) 1853-1911, 1867-09-19

against those OF any other lawyer In the
State. ! confidently affirm that fewer of
Judge Williams decisions, during the
last fifteen years, have met with re-
versal in the Supreme Court than those
of his competitor, Judge Sharswood.-
The records will bear out this statement.
The reports will show, moreover, that
more of his opinions have been adopted
by the Supreme Court, as the law of the
case, than those Of Judg re Sharswood.
Many of your unprofessonal readers
may not be aware that an act of Assem-
bly, requires the Supreme Court to write
out an opinion Ill the cases decided by
them. To meet this exigency of the law
the precise terms of Judge Williams de-
cisions have often been adopted as the
choicest solution, uttered with the hap
piest expression, that could be found for
the purpose.
From a casual glance at the reports,
have met with case or two which it
may be we'll to refer to in illustration of
his eminent fitness for place on the
bench.
The first case 1 would refer to is that
of McClowry VS. Croghan'S administra-
tors Il Grant, 307.) This case involved
very important and novel question as
to the measure Of damages for the breach
of parol contract for the lease of real
estate, where the landlord died before
executing the lease, and the remainder
man refused to execute it. The Hon.
Secretary of War (unhappily in suspen-
sion), +. NJ. Stanton, was counsel for
the plaintiff, and made very able and
vigorous argument, contending that the
measure Of damages acds the ralue Of the
bargain. Judge Williams decided that
the measure of damages was the price
paid for the lease, and the Supreme
Court, upon appeal, affirmed the judgment
for the reasons given by him, which will
be found reported at length in the volume
referred to. The opinion in this case as
quoted as authority Ly Judge UoodrOrd
in the case of Burr VS.. Todd, reported in
5 Wright.
A second case is Campbell VS.. Lacock
G. Wright, 44S). This was a case in
which one of two partners Getty & Gels
signer) sold out his interest to the other,
who. agreed to pay all the debts of the
firm. Lacock became security for Gels
singer, the purchaser, for the performance
of the contract. Campbell, a creditor
of the firm, sued Lacock upon his guar
antee. Judge Williams held that the
plaintiff could not maintain the action,
and the Supreme Court affirmed the judg
meut on his opinion.
A third case (aud the only additional
one l will refer to) is that of Stoops VS..
Blackford g Casey, 2l3). The question
involved in this case was, whether the
assignment of mortgage by married
woman as collateral security for the pay
ment of her husbands debts, was-with-
out her husbands joining therein-valid.
1t was held to be void, and the judgment
was affirmed. Judge Williams opinion
in this case settled the construction of the
married woman's act. 1t is somewhat
singular fact that most Of the intricate
questions growing out of the married wo-
mans act have arisen in the District
Court of this county, so that Judge Will
liams may be regarded as the pioneer
the man to fix the lines and limits Of JUS
tice-in this highly important department
OF the law.
Judge Porter, in his argument in the
case of Brown VS.. Wright, alludes to this
case as the one in which ''the current of
decision on the married woman's act be-
gan to tuau," and in the course of his ar
gument says: mo reader of the case
can fail to remark the enlightened obser-
vations made by Judge Williams, of Pitts
burgh, whose opinion was duly considered
and affirmed by the court, and reported
at length in the case"
The recital of these professional in
stances may prove dull to your general
readers, but they are important, as ex-
amples, to let your Philadelphia people
know how Judge Williams stands in the
profession. Iappeal to the record to show
that his reputation is not second to that
of any man Certainly not to Sharswood) }
in the State of Pennsylvania.
ALLEGHENY.