The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1898-02-23

Among the decisions handed down
during the present session of the su-
pcrior court at Williamsport were eight
affecting Lackawanna cases. OF these,
one of the most geneally commented
upon of IL that Of Mrs. Ellen O'Don-
neil against Charles DUPONT Breck, in
which the defendant was the appellant,
1t appears that Mrs. ODonnell desired
to purchase the Monies property on
Washington avenue and made known
her wish to Mr.. Breck during a casual
conversation. The result of this con-
versation was that Mr.. Breck agreed
70 deliver the property to Mrs. O'Don-
nell for $4,000.
She gave him $500 to carry on the
{ cal but the very day that she paid
this money she learned from one of
the Monies heirs, whom she net on
the street, that the property was on
The market for Sl4 500. Returning to
Mr.. Breck's office she demanded the re-
turn of her $500, saying, as she al
legged at the trial, that Mr. Breck had
not dealt with her in good faith. There
was a long wrangle. it appears, and
It wound up by Mr.. Breck offering and
Mrs. O'Donnell accepting $3.50 sin full
, settlement for all claims ~ to date"
Mr.. Breck to understand that she sign
ed the receipt under compulsion and
would follow linn for the other $40.
CONTENTION OF THE DEFENSE.
The defense was that Mrs. O'Donnell
engaged the real estate firm of which
Mr.. Breck is the senior partner. to Sc
cure for her the property in question,
she agreeing to pay $4,000 for it. They
bought the property and accepted from
her 500 to bind the bargain 1t was
denied that Mrs. O'Donnell signed the
receipt under compulsior or that she
threatened to follow him for the re-
mainder of the $500 and it was con-
tended that the firm acted simply as
real estate dealers and not that one Of
it's members acted as Mrs. . Donnells
attorneys, as she alleged.
The verdict of the lower court was
for che plaintiff and the decision of the
superior court affirms the finuing.
The case of Barnes against the Bonita
Glass company, appellant, is one of un-
usual importance as q dozen other cases
rest upon the outcome. 1t was n suit
for wages brought by w. f. Barnes
against the Bonita Plate Glass COM
pany. The judgment of the local court
was for the plaintiff and the superior
court refuses to disturb it.
In 1894 ]. w. Bonita made a contract
with the Berlin Iron Bridge company
to erect the iron work of the company'S
building. He hired men to work on the
building on jobs not included in the
contract with the Berlin Iron Bridge
lcompany. The plaintiff, Barnes, was
one of these men.
The company defended on the
grounds that it had nothing whatever
to do with the construction of the
building; that Bonita was to erect it
and turn it over to the company free
from all incumberances 1t appears
that the secretary of the company was
in evidence more or less during the
erection of the building and the jury
took it that his ''silent conduct" misled
the man into believing that the Bonita
Plate Glass company would he rcspon-
sible for the work they We're engaged
in, and on this account. it was found
that the company was responsible.
The superior court affirmed this finding
DISPUTE BETWEEN PARTNERS.
One of the various suits growing out
of the dissolution of the firm Of Gilmore
Duffy was also passed upon. 1t was
that in which the firm was plaintiff,
nominally, but A. G. Gilmore, actually,
and Margaret DunleaVy defendant.
The real contest, as is all the other
cases was between the eX-partners.
Mrs. Dunlcavy had q running account
with the firm and was in the habit of
making periodical payments to either
or both of them. When the dissolution
came she owed $3.50. This she paid to
Mr.. Duffy by check. Mr.. Gilmore who,
by the terms Of dissolution, was COM
. misSioned to collect all the outstand-
ing debts, brought suit tC recover the
money a second time from Mrs. Dun
leaYY. He secured judgment in the
local court and the superior court at
frmcd the finding.
1t is alleged in the parer book of the
appellee, that the check paid to Mr..
Duffy has never been Cashed. Mr..
Duffy in answer to this denied that
Mr.. Gilmore was alone entitled TO coll
lect the debts Of the firm; that Gill
more was collecting the money and
applying II to his own uses and that
he, bulty, upon the receipt of the Dun
leavy check turned it over TO the First
National bank of Plymouth to be ap-
piled on a note of $l,7O0 for which the
firm was liable.
The action of Judge Archibald in re-
fusinG to open judgment IN the case
of BiXler & Carrell against j. B. T.esh
was also affirmed. Lesh gave three
bank notes as collateral security on a
judgment note covering a book account
of $3.50. The plaintiffs sued on the
judgment note and the defendant ask