The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1902-06-20

At the annual meeting of the Phila-
delphia Law academy. in HORTICULTURAL
hall, Wednesday night, Judge X. w.
Archibald, of this city, delivered the an
nual address. and was the guest OF
honor at the reception and banquet
which followed.
The assemblage was composed en-
tirely of judges and lawyers. The
United States court was represented by
Judge George NJ. Dallas and Judge
John 3. Mcpherson. Judge w. *.
Weand, of Montgomery county, and
the following Philadelphia judges were
also in attendance: President Judge
William B. Hanna, of the orphans
court. and his associates. Judge Glenn
ent b. Penrose and Judge Joseph G.
Ferguson: Judges Amedee Bregy, Abb
ram NJ. Beitler Mayer Sulzberger and
William w. Wietbank, of the common
pleas court.
Some of the barristers present were
Francis Skunk Brown, Jacob Singer,
Otto Wolf, District Attorney John
Weaver and Assistant District Attor-
ncys Norris s. Barratt, Robert Won
Moschzslier and William A. Gray:
Warren Griffith, Solomon Rains. AS
sstant City Solicitor Robert w. Bran
non, james w. King. Eugene Raymond,
James Goodwin, Charles Lex. William
Starke, Roland Evans. George Carr
Charles b. Roberts, William McClain.
Frank l.. Gartley, Frederick Drake
Percy Wilcox, Lewis w. Colfelt, Joseph
Taylor, ]. Joseph Murphy, Christopher
Wetherill, Moses Hampton Todd, Nor
ton u. Paul, Horace Wurts Page, Mere
dth Hanna, Horace Rumsey, j. Quincy
Hunsicker, Robert Il. Maxwell, Samuel
Dixon, Edward Sauter and I. Elliott
Patterson.
Judge Archibald had for his subject
"The Pennsylvania Coal Company
Against Sanderson: A Study" He said:
JUDGE ARCHBALDS ADDRESS.
In the Importance and novelty OF the
doctrine for which it stands, the vicissi-
tudcs encountered before 1t was finally
established. the radical difference OF opin-
ion and conflicting application of the
same fundamental principles by the mem
bcrs of tho court which decided it. and
the dcbatabl ground which it admittedly
occupies, there are few more interesting
cases in the books than that Of the Penn
sylvania Coal company VS.. Sanderson, 113
Pa. 1o6.'
Four wrts of error were severally
prosecuted, and the Supreme court, after
three times-by the concurring judgment
of six different members of that tribunal
declaring the law to be one way by the
narrow vote of four to three in the end
decided ii to be just the other. While
it has been cited with approval in SUBJ
scuucnt cases. in several it has been ma
tcrially qualified, and in some these quail
iiications have been so far reaching as to
suggest that If originally recognized the
result might possibly have been. different.
Outside Of Pennsylvania the decision
has been distinctly rcpudiatcd by courts
of the highest authority. including the
house of lords in England. and has been
accepted by comparatively few. 1t is into
this attractive field that / ask YOU to
enter in the discussion which is to fol-
low. in order to determine academically.
if possible. the real value which is to be
attached to it by the profession.
THE SUIT BEGUN
In 1865 the plaintiffs, Mrs. Sanderson
and her husband purchased "A small tract
in the suburbs of Scranton for the pur-
pose of residence, and proceeded to
erect upon it Il stone mansion. which was
at that time. and still is. one of the
handsomest in the city. Running through
the tract was a small stream of pure wa
ter, the availability of which formed a
material induccment to the site selected.
Not only was water introduced from it
into the house and grounds, but the nat
ural beauty of the stream was utilized in