Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-08-13
THE UNCERTAINTY OF THE LAW.

A communication to the Philadelphia
Press, with reference to the statement from
New York that one out of four decisions by
the lower courts are reversed by the higher
tribunals, puts the case with regard to Penn
sylvania in a different light. In this case
the writer. whom the Press pronounces a law
yer of standing, declares that what his pro-
fession thrives on is the fact that if the Su-
preme Court has ruled on an issue, and eff
we are dissatisfied with it. we try again, and
hit the mark once in four times" In other
words, the assertion is made that by taking
four different cases involving the same issue
to the Supreme Court, lawyers have a good
chance of getting final decisions in favor of
both sides.
This could naturally be taken as hyper
bole, if the communication did not support
the assertion with examples of the most
striking character. Thus, it is said that 'sin
enc case the Supreme Court has decided
that if debtor claims an exemption of $500
from levy and sale, the Court, that is, the
Judge, cannot disallow it, but that Jury
must decide whether it may be refused, as
it Ray be fraudulent debtor or pon-resi-
dent; and in another case the same Supreme
Court said that the lower court or Judge
must decide the question and not q jury"
On an entirely different matter the same
tribunal is alleged to have ruled that in in.
terpreting will the question is not what
the dead man meant. but what is the mean
ing of the words used by him; and in
another case the question is not what the
words used by him mean. but what did he
mean. By the same authority in one case
the assessment for damages in vacating
street is personal charge on the property
owner against whom it is assessed for bene-
fits, and in another that it is not personal
charge.
Not only are there other instances in
which the Supreme Court gets on both sides
of principle in different cases; but in one
remarkable instance it got on both sides of the
same case. In a will case the court below in
structed the Jury to bring in verdict sus-
tanning the will, and the Supreme Court re-
versed the case on the ground that the evil
dence should have been submitted to the
jury without binding instructions. On the
second trial the same Judge submitted the
case in accordance with the ruling of the
Supreme Court the jury found verdict
against the will, and the cause being taken
up, the Supreme Court held that the Judge
should have told the jury to find in favor of
the will, for doing which he had been pre-
viouslv reversed.
These contradictions make a long list,
which we cannot take space to give. When
We find, in the same volume of reports, that
a contract tainted with fraud may be ratified
and that it may not; when we learn that in
one case married woman can sue her hus-
band for debt and another that she cannot,
then we perceive that the old sarcasm about
the inability of omniscience to foretell the
outcome of litigation must be modified so as
to bring out the fact that if you keep at it
industriously enough you can get decision
to almost any effect from the eminent court
of last resort in this State. This, as the
Philadelphia lawyer says makes plenty of
business for the lawyers, and gives the best |
chance of success to the fellow who gets the |
last guess.
The first effect of these assertions is the |
humorous one; but it is nevertheless very |
serious matter. If these citations are not |
either very much perverted or absolutely |
Fictitious, the fact that in SO many cases the
Supreme Court has absolutely contradicted
itself on matters which should be settled by |
immutable principles, is very grave one.
1t reduces the science of Jurisprudence to a
game of chance and makes the development
of fixed principles in settling disputes at
law about as equitable as a cast of the dice.
If these assertions are not libel upon the
highest tribunal in this State, the first work
Of legal reform should be to enable the su-
preme Court to stick to its own decisions,