The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1899-11-21

chanics Lien Law Discussed.
Four opinions dealing with impor-
tant questions were rendered at the
opening of the second week of the
November term of common pleas
court yesterday morning. Three wers
by Judge Archibald and one by Judge
Gunster. The last opinion was hand
ed down by Judge Archibald for Judge
Gunster, the latter being i'll at his
home.
In the opinion handed down by
Judge Gunster the bill is dismissed in
the equity case brought by Daniel II.
Watkins and others to enforce a claim
to a half interest in the Clark tunnel
mine opening in the Third ward
leased from the Delaware, Lackawan-
ma and Western company and oper-
ated by Benjamin Hughes.
The plaintiffs are heirs of Thomas
f. Watkins, deceased. They aver that
the deceased was a half owner in the
leasehold and sought to prove this
with a paper purporting to be an as
signment and bearing the name of Mr.
Hughes. The latter denied the claim,
ed the signature as a forgery. Wat
kins, he said, was simply engaged as
manager of the colliery at a salary
equivalent to half the net proceeds.
DAVISES WERE WRONG.
Judge Gunster finds that the conten-
tion of the defendant is correct and
dismisses the bill at the cost of the
plaintiffs. The principal witnesses
for the plaintiff We're Z. Ellsworth
Davis and Eben p. Davis. They posi-
lively identified the signature in ques-
ton as that of Benjamin Hughes.
Four years ago Michael Walter, a
resident of this county, was allowed
by court to adopt Paulina v. KEEPER,
minor child Of Jacob D. and Mary
KEEPER. Recently the wife of Mr..
Walter. the adopting father, deserted
him, eloping to Indiana with a travel
ing painter and taking the child with
her. Mr.. KEEPER, the maternal father,
upon learning of this, followed the
elopers, regained his child and now
has her at his home in Altoona. Set
ting forth these facts, he petitioned
court to have the decree of adoption
annulled and the child restored to
her former status as his own daugh-
ter.
This, Judge Archibald declares, can
not be done. Where a decree of adop-
tion has been obtained by mistake,
Misrepresentation or fraud, where no
valid consent has been given, or
where, by reason Of the non-residence
of the petitioner in the county, the
court has no Jurisdiction to make the
decree, it may without doubt undo
what it has done and enter a formal
order of revocation. In one instance
the proceedings being tainted by it
and the court has the inherent right,
as in other cases, by revoking the de-
cree, to balk the fraud perpetrated
upon it.
TRUE IN A DEGREE.
The same is true, in a degree, where
it is based on a mistake. So, also,
where the decree of adoption has no
legal force, because there was no con-
sent, or the court had no Jurisdiction
over the parties, it may expressly un-
do what it had assumed to do, by an
order annulling it's action and restor-
ing the parties to their original rela-
| tion.
But beyond this" Judge Archibald
| goes on to say, 1--WE do not see our
way to go. The proceedings are stat
utory and we have no powers which
the statute has not directly or by nee
| essary implication conferred When
| the adoption of a child has been duly
| and regularly decreed our authority
! over the proceedings are at an end.
"The statute makes no provision for
| a reconsideration or modification OF
| the Judgment upon new contingencies
| and there is nothing from which the
| power to do can be so implied The
| paramount interests of the child dc
! not form continuing consideration
| which can be invoked and appealed
/ TO at any subsequent stage as the
/ basis of what amounts to a new decrea
/ sstting aside the first one It may be
| that there ought to be some such au-
/ thOrity vested in the courts as there
| evidently is in some other states. but
| in this state. our powers stop where
, the statute leaves them. and we can
not extend them beyond"
NO NEED OF REVOCATION.
In case of this kind the Judge re-
/ marks there is no great need of re,
/ vocation. The relation between Mr.
! KEEPER and his daughter exists despite
/ the adopted parentage of Mr.. Walter
/ She will inherit from him and he from
her. The changed name remains, bu
/ for all practical purposes it makes
/ very little difference to the partie.
whether the decree continues in force
/ or is revoked.
In the case of Mason e Snowder
against Margaret S. Kennedy, Judge
Archibald directs judgment for $3S A
! reserved law point, Notwithstanding
! the jury's verdict in favor of the plain
! tiff for SS43.S0.
The decision depended on the con.
! struction of the act of May IS, 1887
! p L. 11S, which requires that to make
a lien effectual for work done or mate,
! rails furnished in the repair of a build,
ing notice must be given to the owner
or reputed owner Of the property o.
! the intention to file lien "at the time
of furnishing the materials or per,
forming the work in and about the
repairs, alterations. or additions" TIL,
act is very crudely drawn, Judge
| Archibald says, but II is plainly stated
| that notice must be given "at the
time" the work is done or material,
furnished and this must be construed
to mean what II says.
WHAT JUDGE ALLOWED.
In the present case the plaintiff.
sought to recover on the strength O
a notice given after all but small
fraction of the materials were deliv