The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1896-01-21
DEGREES IN twenty Gases
Handed Down BY the Judges Of ths
Superior Court.
WE'RE HEARD AT PHILADELPHIA
Opinions Handed Down In Gases Argued
at the Preceding Session of the
COurt-Only One Case Was
Argued Yesterday.

The superior courts sitting was re-
sumed at 1.30 yesterday afternoon with
the seven judges present. The first
thing done was the handing down of
opinions in cases that have been ar
gued. The adjudication of them is
given below. There was but one case
argued.
Homer Greene, HOnesdale's poet
lawyer, represented the appellant, and
Attorneys A. r. Searle and ex-Judge
II. Wilson represented the appellee.
The arguments of the cOunsels Of both
sides were eloquent. The case was one
in which the burning of saw mill at
Honesdale caused the litigation.
Henry Il. Russell. the appellant, had
been the agent of the company at
Honesdale since March Is. 1882. In the
same year he placed In the company
the risk on the saw mill, fixtures and
property of Joseph Atkinson at Tafton,
Pike county. Pa. This risk was carried
by the company, the policy being re-
newed from year to year. until the
property was burned April "a, 1893. The
policy in force at the time of the fire
was issued September II, 1892 and eX-
pired September IL, 1893.
on or about January 6, 1898, Il. j. CAL
lev, a special agent for the company,
called at the appellants office in Homes
dale and left list of eleven policies
then in force which he marked. rake
up" This list included the Atkinson
policy and afterward letter was re-
ceived from the company in which the
action of Special Agent Galley in or
dering the policies taken up was con-
tirmed and the appellant was ordered
in the letter to cancel the policies
specified at once.
Company Had to Pay Up.
Tn consequence of the failure of Mp.
Russell to cancel the Atkinson policy
the company had to pay out 500 IN
payment of the loss On Dec. I, 1898,
the company brought suit on account
of alleged negligence by him as agent
i'm that he did not use due ana reason
able care. diligence and skill promptly
and faithfully to carry out the ORDERS
issued to him to terminate the pohcy
of insurance issued to Joseph Atkinsol.
The suit was tried before Judge Pur-
DIV. of Honesdale. and a verdict was
rendered in favor of the plaintin In the
sum of $7OO56. The appeal argued yes
terday is to reverse the finding OF the
lower court and order new trial. Ihe
following Is the list of cases In Wnlch
decisions have been rendered:
Rice. p: J;-Borough Of colwyn n,ss; VS.;
Thomas Tarbolton, appellant; Appear
IL
Isaac a. Sheppard vs.. John 4: bohen
Judgment of common pleas. NO. !, or
Philadelphia, affirmed
Delaware county's appeal: orders OF
Delaware county common pleas a1lineu
Nicoll vs. McCaffrey, et at: Opinion OF
common pleas of Philadelphia appealed.
Willard, J.--F'rank II. Mauey. assignee.
vs.. Michael Noon, defendant, ana the Redi
Estate Title Insuranr, company terre-
tenant: Judgment of con. '" pleas. NO.
Z Of philadelphia, aftirmeu.
The burgess and town council u. ne Dor-
ough of Norrstown vs.. Ellen Is. Form nee,
appellant: Judgment OF common lleas
of Montgomery county affirmed
Opinions Of Judge Wickham.
Wickham, J.-Jacobs VS.. the Union Gem
etery association of Allentown and May
berry H. Weidner: Judgment of common
pleas of I.ehigh county affirmed ana APP
pelant ordered to pay costs OF appeal
Shelly VS.. Dampman: Judgment or the
Berks county court reversed and JudS-
ment awarded for the plaintiT. on the Ve"-
diet for $50 with interest from Sept. .S,
1891. and costs.
George II. Hubbard & Co. vs.: Dennis
French Judgment reversed and pro-
cedendo awarded.
Conrade, assignee, etc., VS.. Michael F.
O'Brien: ordered that the record IN this
case be remitted to the court below and
ment against the defendant for such sum
as to right and justice may belong un-
less other legal or equitable cause be
shown why Judgment should not be so en-
tered.
Mower to use. etc. vs. the Reverting
Fund Assurance association: Judgment
affirmed.
Beaver, J.-Appeal of the Nuding Brew
ing company: Judgment of common pleas
of Schuylkil county affirmed.
Manning vs.. Klein, ct. at: Judgment
of common pleas, No. ]. of Philadelphia,
affirmed.
Appelegate VS.. COhn & Berger: Judg-
ment of common please of Lehigh county
affirmed.
Irwin. assignee, VS.. Hauthorn: Judg-
ment of common pleas Of Chester county
affirmed.
Hand vs. Russell: Judgment Of COM
mon pleas, No. 4, Of Philadelphia, af-
firmed.
Passed on by Reedcr snd Orlady.
Reader, John +. Riley. appellant. VS..
John Il. EigO: Judgment of common pleas,
No. ., of Philadelphia. affirmed.
William 3. Muir, appellant, vs. John II.
Shinn: Judgment of common pleas, No. g.
of Philadelphia. reversed.
Orlady, J.-Samuel Moore VS., Jacob
Grow: Judgment of common pleas Of
Montgomery county affirmed.
The Interstate Mutual Fire Insurance
company VS.. q. NJ. BrOwnback & Co., lin
tied: Judgment Of common pleas Of
Philadelphia affirmed.
~