The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1898-11-18

sary that there should be rightful title
1t must, however be a possession under
claim or color of title, and exclusive OF
any other right, . Johns $50: 13 Id. 1lS.
But in this state. II is not necessary that
there should be an express claim of title;
or that there should be "a color of title:
but when person disclaims in himself or
does not claim title, but asserts the right
to be in another, It is not such an adj
verse possession as wifi give title under
the act of limitations"
1t is our judgment that the defendant
has no right TO complain of the instruc-
tion to the jury on this point.
HANNAH DECKER's DECLARATIONS
g. The declarations of Hannah Decker
while on the land in the apparent possess
sion of II. These declarations were clear
ly admissible. The evidence shows that
Hannah Decker was the widow of An.
drew Decker. The land in question was
known as the Decker property or the
Decker homestead. II had been in the
possession of the Deckers for many years.
When Hendrick u. Wright became the
owner of the legal title to this and other
lands he found the Decker claim in tho
way. lie purchased the interest of all the
Decker heirs.
At this time Hannah Decker was a
a widow and was in possession of the
property. BY an arrangement with Mr..
Wright the widow was permitted TO re-
main on the land as long as she lived.
Subsequently when Lacoe and others be-
came the owners they found the widow in
possession. She reminded them of her
agreement with Mr.. Wright. They agreed
To honor the arrangement and told the
widow she might live on the land for the
remainder of her life.
And IL is while she was on the land in
the apparent possession of it and claiming
to own n life estate In it, that the deCa-
rations objected to were made. We find
no error in the admission of these deciI-
rations i'm evidence.
g. The defendants third objection re-
quires but little comment. Defendant
served a. notice on plaintiffs lessee for
bidding the lessee from mining coal under
q piece of land including the land i'm dis
pute. This notice was signed by the de-
fcndant. not in his own behalf but claim
ing for the heirs Of Andrew Decker. mis-
wife being one of them. The fact of ihts
notice was submitted to the jury as Il
circumstance inconsistent with the de-
PENDANTS claim Of adverse ossession.
4. For the same reason we admitted evil
denCe as to the obtaining of a deed by dc-
fcudant for the same land from the heirs
OF Andrew Decker. We were careful. to
instruct the jury that the defendant had
=" 49, ~ P'' '''
M'IllouI Coiill oniiSliE hin cl'inl U, 'tG-
,,n,,,. ~ t tba ,,,ir,oso fn,, ;c,, tno dred
was ohtaincd and thn notice of dofendaut
to plaintiffs lessee claiming title for the
Decker heirs We submitted the fact OF the
purchase of the alleged Decker tltl" v''
other facts Of the defendant as err
'"hlS'ahcc 10 De consineiea DS tl,h' III
p'SH'''1 "i'o'' '"e N"'''i'H VI Ms ''''''''
WAS A CASE FOX JURY.
Counsel for plaintiff streuuously insist
ed on binding instructions to the jury To
find for the plaintiff. We were much i'm
pressed pN IN" lorce OF thelr contention
anu anu We Iu @ 'i'"' 'iC I'm
"g,i,, or ad,.ar.,l ,ng,,,ysio,,. h,,+ ,, ,,rn
stiu NJ the onininn nftor r,yinwinp tho
evidence. thar If was a case for the lu!v.
The jury decided in favor of the plaintiff.
Under the evidence We do not see how
they could decide othcrwlSe. IN" rulu
lor a new tllai IL uiscHarS'" anu INV
''i'' 10 i't"''"'
The usury question arose IN the cas-.
OF the Mutual Guarantee Building ana
Loan association against Elleh Shea
fa'loh ana othefS. Inc defendants
borrowed S"'6oo from the hSS"claIl"n
| ana upon 1alllhS III an interest pay
meht' the company : attorney hN power
invested thfouEh lhe contract con-
/ feSsed judgment Tor her III IaNor oi
the company.
She asked 10 maze tne judgment OPP
eheu' aileSlhS thdt "ilIe the company
was chartered IN NeW Jersey ana pur
ported TO nave ls h''td'!uar'efs II
Ndiluel' IL III id'' mas llS Hl"lH niilce
III fhllaaeiphia ana ttahsactS lhe oulN
OF us puslf'sS III inns state. ana 'Alis
pelhS the case the interest rh''iS'
| Nhlch was III excess Oh the lnaNlhluil
| allowed N Pehis\lNah was Illegal
JuuSe EdNarIS says 'ldl Nnil' IN,
/ association may nc l" an iitehtS ana
purposes FehhsNlNah'2 concern, ana
| Whlle IL may nav" taken IN" means
/ rpnCV of thp pennSVlCaui1 laws ana