The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1899-01-18

When the Superior court adjourned
yesterday the argument list had been
exhausted. Today the judges will hand
down number Of opinions and then
final adjournment of the session will
be had.
The brokers' license case, in which
c. Z. Jadwin, appellant, is plaintiff
ana Robert +. Hurley, defendant, was
argued by c. Comegys and w. a. Will
cox for the appellant and Jessup q Jes-
sup and T. f. Wells for the appellee.
Mr.. Jadwin claimed commission
from Mr. Hurley for securing a pur-
chaser for three lots in North Park.
The sale was never consummated but
this, Mr.. Jadwin claimed, was no fault
of his and should not operate against
his being paid for his services.
Mr.. Hurley alleged that Mr.. Jadwn
tried to negotiate sale but failed, and
consequently was not entitled to any
commission. One of the reasons why
Mr.. Hurley refused to entertain Mr..
Jadwin's claim was that he informed
him during the early part of the nego-
tiations that the intending purchaser
was an out-of-town man and a total
stranger, while it developed that ii was
A. G. Fuller. of this city, with whom
Mr.. Hurley had had previous dealings
concerning North Park property.
LICENSE WAS ATTACKED.
The question of whether or not Mr..
Jadwin did the work he contracted to
do was overshadowed in the trial Of
the case by the question of his right
to do a real estate brokerage business.
His license was attacked by the de-
tense on the ground that it should
have been secured from the county
treasurer instead of the city treasurer
Judge Love, who specially presided in
the case, sustained this contention and
directed judgment for the defendant.
The appeal is from this judgment.
The main question put to the
Superior court was as to whether or
not the special act of 1867, permitting
Scranton merchants to pay their mer-
camille tax to the city treasurer, had
been repealed by the Act of 1887, which
Stipulates that in all counties except
Philadelphia the county commissions
ers shall make the mercantile appraise-
ment through an officer to be appointed
by them and that the mercantile tax
should be paid to the county treas
urer.
The appellants claim that the spe-
| Cial act was not repealed. The defend
ant contended that the main purpose
| of the act was to repeal this special
| act. The latter was passed. it was
| alleged, for the convenience of the
| Scranton merchants. The formation of
| Lackawanna county removed the need
| of the special act.
The paSa of Simon (,ihbg md pth
against Mary b. Tiffany and others
appellants, common pleas. Bradford
county, was argued by II. F.. Maynard
for the appellants and j. C. Ingham
for the appellees.
BRADFORD COUNTY CASE.
S. w. Little. for the appellant. and
| II. r. Maynard, for the appellees
argued the case of S. j. Little, appel
liant, against the Lehigh Valley Rail.
road company, garnishee of Louis Bal.
| liette, common pleas, Bradford county
| The question involved is the legality
of attaching wages for labor by for.
eign attachment.
| A. j. Adams appeal from the finding
of the Orphans court of Susquehanna
county, in the matter of exceptions ia
the widows appraisement and inven
tory in the estate of Calvin A. Smons
! deceased was argued by Edison w
Stafford, for the appellant and w. d
B. Ainey, for the appellee.
Rodney A. Mercur. for the appellants
and s. w. Little, for the appellee, pre-.
sented the case Of William Little, ad
ministrator, against A. c. Fairchild
and George Grace, appellants, common
| nlaoS bradford county.
The appeal from the judgment of the
common pleas of Bradford county II
| the case of the commonwealth to the
use Of A. b. Markham against Uriat
Terry and others, appellants, wal
| argued by /. Mcpherson, for the ap
pellants. and w. 4. Davies, for thu
| appellees.