The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1902-07-12

tanned IN the case or George l.. PccR.
trustee for Howard II. Beideman' and
his creditors, against william Council.
Mr. Beidleman was in the book busi-
ness on Spruce street In this city. On
April 20 1885, when he began business
he borrowed sl,5OO from Mr.. Connell and
gave his note for that amount.
Along in 1899 Mr.. Bedleman became
| financially involved and to protect the
note of sl,500 Mr.. Connell had an exc
cution issued on it. On June 5, 1899. Mr..
Beidleman filed petition in bankruptcy
and on June 10 following was decided
a bankrupt. In the meantime there had
been sale of his stock on the Connell
judgment and $1,000 was realized.
| Mr. Peck as trustee for the creditors
of Beidleman, began suit to collect from
Mr.. Connell the amount realized by
the sale, alleging that the amount
should be divided pro rata among the
creditors taking the ground that as
] the execution was not issued until less
| than four months before Mr.. Beidle-
| man became bankrupt under the
bankruptcy law Mr.. Connell was not
entitled to preference on his note but
must take his place among the other
| creditors.
/
This position was vigorously opposed
| by Attorney Ezra II. Connell, who ap-
peared for the defendant. He argued
that it was not the purpose of the
bankruptcy act to take from creditor
| his incentive to vigilence in collecting
| his claim from a debtor who happens
to become an insolvent and that it
| would be a great injustice to rob
| man of his right to collect on note
| where it was manifest there was no
attempt at preference on the part of
the person owing the claim.
The court of this county sustained
| the position taken by Attorney Connell
and decided against Trustee Peck who
thereupon took an appeal to the su-
perior court where Attorney Connell
again argued the points that won
victory in the lower court. The opinion
of the superior court was written by
Judge w. D. Porter and endorses the
contention OF Attorney Connell as good
law and good sense. There will be no
division of the amount realized from
the sale.
The other Lackawanna county case
was George Cooper against the city
of Scranton an appeal by the city from
a verdict of $1,4OO awarded in favor OF
the plaintiff. 1t was the third trial of
the case. On the first trial non suit
was granted on the ground that If the
Eight street sewer was inadequate to
carry off the water it was an error of
judgment on the part of the engineers
by whom the sewer was planned and
the city was not liable for their errors
of Judgment
On the second trial the declaration
was amended to show that the damage
was caused by the negligent manner
in which the sewer was maintained by
the city and juror was Withdrawn
and the case continued.
The third trial resulted In verdict
for $4,000 in favor of Cooper and from
this an appeal to the superior court
was taken by the city. The opinion Of
that body written by Judge w. d.
Porter follows:
THE OPINION.
There was no dispute as to the facts
material to the consideration of this ap-
peal. The plaintiff was the owner of
lot of ground on which was erected
block of houses fronting on the east
side of Eighth street in the city or
Scranton. Eighth street ran from Lack
The grade of the street had been grad
ual descent from the former to the latter
street. and sewer was laid in the street
in 1893 which carried off all surface wa
ter and prevented any injury to the prop
erty of the plaintiff. In lS95 the city ,n-
dertOoll the work of constructing APP
proaches to the Linden street brige over
Lackawanna river, the city councils by
a duly enacted ordinance raised the
grade of Linden street and about 2i0 feet
of the northerly end of Eighth street.
so as to make the grade of the latter
street correspond with that of Linden
street at the intersection.
The proceedings We're conducted in n
regular manner and the physical changes
required to make the streets conform to
the newly established grades were made
upon the ground. The change in the
grade of Eighth street extended from
Linden street south to point about op-
poste the middle of the plaintiffs prop
erty, from which point after the work
was completed, the grade of the street
slightly ascended in each direction, south
to Lackawanna avenue and north to Lin
den street The consequences was that
the plaintiffs property was left opposite
a depression in the street, toward which
the surface water from each end of the
street flowed, instead of as formerly hav-
ing an uninterrupted flow from north TO
south over the whole length of the street.
This change of grade of Eighth street
caused water, which formerly passed off
In another direction, to flow upon the
property. The plaintiff brought this ac-
ton of trespass to recover damages al
legged to have resulted from the flooding
of his house and lots.
NOT CAUSE FOR ACTION.
The mere omission of the municipal au-
thorities to provide adequate means to