The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1902-03-04

demanded deed from Hymon Stone which Stone
refused to execute and deliver to him.
On the refusal Of Stone to make decd TO him
plaintiff filed this bill, praying for decree of
specific performance, etc.
From the facts as above stated it appears that
Mary Gilligan is now vested with the legal title
to the lot in question. She is not party 10 this
bill. This fact, in our opinion, stands in the
way Of our granting decree of specific perform.
ance. In 20 Amer & Eng Encyc. OF Pleading 6S
Prac., 412, the general rule is stated that all per-
sons interested in the enforcement of contract
| must be made partes and that the general rule
of equity pleading that all persons whose inter-
ests are to be affected by the suit are necessary
parties to it applies to suits for specific per-
formance In the same volume, at pages 4l5.i1G,
we find the proposition stated 'Wherc one
agrees by written contract to sell land, and af-
terwards conveys, to different person who has
knowledge of the previous contract, the latter
holds the legal title trustee of the first pur-
chaser, and court of equity will compel him to
convey; and in bill by the first purchaser for
specific performance against his vendcr, the sec
ond purchaser is necessary party. Persons, who,
after the making of n contract for the convey
ancc of lands, acquire interests in the lands
derived from the vendcr are necessary parties to a
bill for specific performance of the contract"
BY virtue of the orphans court sale the plain
tiff succeeded to the rights of the decedent. un-
der the contract, and no doubt has the right 10
enforce the specific performance but under the
rules above stated he must make the subsequent
purchaser a party We therefore hold as mat
ter Of law: l. That before the plaintiff is en-
titled to decree of specific performance he must
make Mary Gilligan party defendant. 2. That
the plaintiffs bill should be dismissed.
And now, March 3, 1902, it is ordered that a
decree be prepared by the defendants solicitor, a
copy served upon the plaintiffs solicitor, with
o
rules. John p Kelly, A. L. j.
In the case of Owen Biglin against
William Earn, Judge Edwards dismissed
the defendants exceptions to the find
ing of the referee.
Biglin worked for Earn in the mines
and traded with Earn in his liquor
store. When they came to make a set
tlement, Biglin agreed that his liquor
bill of $685. should be deducted from
what was owing him in wages. His
wife wouldn't hear to this and COM
PEELED her husband to sue for the whole
amount.
Referee T. p Duffy decided that 1t
was illegal for Earn to deduct the
liquor bill from the wages, even ad-
mitting that Biglin agreed that it
might be done.
In supporting the finding of the ref
cree, Judge Edwards says: "The al
lowance of such an account in a set
tlement is no bar to an action. We
know of no device, however ingenious,
by which such an account can be col
lected or secured"
In the case of Frank Pierce against
George Cowperthwaite. Judge Edwards
overruled the demurrer. The rule to
set aside the award of the arbitrators
in the case of B. +. Williams against
Theodore Wachna and wife was dis
charged by Judge Edwards. He also
dismissed the exceptions to the report
of the referee in the case of the Second
National bank of Winona against +. H.
Clemons, ct al.
Judge Edwards recommtted the re-
port of the referee in the case of Eliza
beth Wallace, Administrative, against
w. w. Simrell, ct al, that correction
might be made in the manner of direct
ing Judgment. The exceptions were all
overruled.
Judge Edwards wrote the opinion re-
fusing new trial in the case of
Spruks Bros. against Patrick Lally. 1t
was case tried before Judge Carpen-
ter.