« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »
last car, taking tickets. McCarthy testified that from the North Philadelphia Station, a siding he "told him that that fellow up in front was is the northernmost track, and the track upon gone. He wanted to know who. I said the which the train was proceeding toward Philafellow that sat opposite me.” By this time delphia is the next track to the south. the train was at a signal tower known as The contention of the plaintiff is that the N. G., which is on the hill over the tunnel on defendant is liable for Mott's death, if after the east drive of Fairmount Park at the east | knowledge or reason to believe that he was in end of the bridge crossing the Schuylkill river. a place of peril on their tracks, they failed to In order to inform himself as to what had hap- exercise reasonable care to save him from death pened, the conductor immediately returned to or further injury. It does not appear however, the smoking car, and searched for baggage or that it was the duty of the conductor under the other belongings of the deceased, and inquired circumstances of the case, to stop the train. of other passengers whether they had seen him. Nor does it appear that Mott's rescue could have He did not succeed, however, in learning what been made without peril to the other passenhad become of Mott, and whether he had step- gers. It is not shown that other trains could ped from the train as it was leaving the North have been prevented from passing until Mott Philadelphia Station or had fallen off. By this was safely off the tracks. The conductor did time the train was at Signal Tower No. 3, not have notice that Mott had fallen from the which is near the Zoological Garden or the tun- moving train in a dangerous place. Moreover, nel on the west side of the Schuylkill river, ap- it is plain that the decedent was guilty of conproaching the main line tracks, and the contributory negligence, for it is negligence to ductor said to McCarthy, "There is nothing I stand on the platform steps of a moving train, can do now, and I will report it at the West and it was not shown that the water-closet opPhiladelphia Station.”. Within a few seconds posite Mott's seat was locked. No evidence of this station was reached, and the conductor negligence on the part of the defendant was immediately informed an usher that there was shown. It is a question of careful railroad a report that a passenger had fallen off at the management, and it was not shown that the North Philadelphia Station. This was at 9:06 movement of the trains between West Philadel p. m., and at 9:10 the train reached Broad phia and North Philadelphia Stations could Street Station, and the conductor notified the have been suspended from the time the restation master to the same effect within two or ported disappearance of Mott was announced to three minutes after arrival.
the conductor. No evidence was produced by About 9:45 p. m. several boys were at Twen- the plaintiff to show that it was improper railty-Second street and Sedgely avenue on a vacant road management not to have suspended the lot on the north side of the railroad tracks near passage of all trains in that section. . Nor is a Fite & Arbelo's lumber yard, which is on the connection proved of the defendant's negligence south side of the tracks. The boys were about with Mott's death. It was not shown that a quarter of a square from the tracks, and Mott could have been found in time to save his while they were playing on or about a log on life, and the plaintiff's contention of alleged the lot, they heard cries or moans coming from negligence cannot be sustained without the use the east, from the direction of Fite & Arbeloof many inferences. Company's yard. . They walked toward the tracks and saw a man about half a square from
Argued before FELL, C. J., and MESTREthe sawmill walking on the tracks from the ZAT, POTTER, ELKIN, and MOSCHZISwest, and, becoming frightened, they returned KER, JJ. to the lot. Opposite Fite & Arbelo's lumber yard, are four tracks, the southernmost being known as No. 1 and the northernmost No. 4, both of Philadelphia, for appellant.
Thomas F. Gain and Alfred L. Cameron,
John and two are for passenger travel and two for freight. A freight train passed eastward on Hampton Barnes, of Philadelphia, for appeltrack No. 2, and the boys returned to the track lee. towards the place from which the cries or moans came, and by the light from the windows of a passenger train also passing east, they PER CURIAM. A clear and concise statesaw Mott's dismembered body. It was on the ment of the facts developed at the trial apsecond rail as the tracks are approached from the south. The boys then sought a policeman, pears in the opinion of the learned judge of and found two at Marjie street and Sedgely the common pleas dismissing the motion to avenue, one of whom fixed the time at 9:35. take off the, nonsuit. The only ground on One went with the boys to where the body which the defendant could be held liable was lay, while the other called the patrol, which shortly arrived. The officer in charge of it that the conductor was negligent in not stopstates that he received the patrol call at 10:30. ping the train after he had investigated the Before the patrol wagon arrived, a track walk- report that a passenger who had gone on the er of the defendant company appeared, and assisted in the removal of the body. It was platform after the train had started from the shown that at this point between 9 p. m. and station, was missing. His investigation which 10:50 p. m., on the night of the accident, 16 was made promptly and intelligently disclosed trains passed on all four tracks.
When signal tower known as G. D. at the North nothing as to the actual occurrence. Philadelphia Station, to the place opposite Fite it was completed the train was at a place & Arbelo's lumber yard, where Mott's body where it could not be stopped with due rewas found, the distance is 3,000_feet, and one gard to the safety of the passengers, and it mile and 2.280 feet east of N. R. From the signal tower G. D. to the signal tower at the was within a minute or two of the next staeast end of the bridge known as N. R., the dis- tion at which he gave notice that would start tance is two miles.
an investigation. In the absence of evidence The record shows that this section of the dethat the defendant in any way caused the fendant's road is protected by the automatic block signal system, and that the presence of fall of the deceased from the train or omitted the train automatically sets an absolute stop to do anything which it could reasonably be signal for the block in back of the train and a required to do under the circumstances, there caution signal for the second block back of the train. At the point where Mott was last seen was nothing to submit to the jury. by McCarthy as the train was about pulling out The judgment is affirmed.
(245 Pa. 134)
walk was several feet above the established DETTRA v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA. grade of the street, and she was therefore (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. April 20, obliged to grade it off so as to make the 1914.)
grade conform. On 27th March, 1913, she 1. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ($ 399*) - presented her petition asking that viewers be
CHANGE OF GRADE-RIGHT TO DAMAGES— appointed to assess the damages she had sus-
tained in consequence of having been requirviding that the damages assessed for the opened to lower her sidewalk in order to curb and ing of any street shall include all damages due pave. Viewers were accordingly appointed; to the grade at which the street is to be opened, but subsequently, on motion of the city, the and that the plan attached to the viewers' re-order appointing them was revoked, and the port shall show the existing grade, where a public street was opened by ordinance in 1894, original petition was quashed, for the reason and proceedings were duly instituted for the as- that, if petitioner had sustained any damages, sessment of damages and a road jury was ap- her claim for compensation should have been pointed, which, after hearing evidence, filed its report during the same year, and where the own- presented in the proceedings before the road er of a lot abutting on the street, though having jury in 1894, of which she admittedly had notice of the proceedings, failed to present any notice. The act of May 26, 1891 (P. L. 117), claim for compensation for damages sustained,
provides: she was not entitled to have damages assessed and compensation allowed her for a lowering of “That in all cases of assessment of damages her sidewalk necessitated by an ordinance for the opening, or widening of any street or adopted in 1911.
the award of damages, if [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Municipal any, shall include all damages due to the grade Corporations, Cent. Dig. SS 958-961; Dec. Dig. at which said street or highway is to be opened $ 399.*]
or widened, and the plan attached to the re
port of the viewers awarding the damages shall 2. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (8 402*)
402*) — have therein a profile plan showing the existing CHANGE OF GRADE-ASSESSMENT OF DÁM- grade.” AGES. Act May 26, 1891 (P. L. 117), providing
The contention of appellant is that this that the damages assessed for the opening of act applies only in cases where land has been any street shall include all damages due to the actually taken and appropriated, and that, grade at which the street is to be opened, and inasmuch as the claim she here presents is that the plan attached to the viewers' report shall show the existing grade, contemplates that not for land appropriated, but simply for all damages to abutting land consequent upon expense she was put to in order to bring her the improvement of a street shall be assessed in pavement to conformity with the established a single proceeding.
[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Municipal grade of the street, she could have had no Corporations, Cent. Dig. 88 969-981; Dec. Dig. standing to assert her right before the jury § 402.*]
appointed in 1894, and that no injury was
sustained by her until required by ordinance Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Phil- of 1911 to pave and curb. As to the latter adelphia County.
contention, it is only necessary to say that Petition by Mary B. Dettra against the whatever damages or loss resulted to appelCity of Philadelphia for the appointment of lant was in consequence, of the ordinance of viewers. From a judgment quashing the pe- 6th April, 1894. That ordinance opening tition, plaintiff appeals. Dismissed.
Willow Grove avenue at a fixed grade made a Argued before FELL, C. J., and BROWN, lowering of the grade of appellant's sidewalk ELKIN, STEWART, and MOSCHZIS
at some time inevitable, and the damage and KER, JJ.
loss that would result to the property owner Henry B. Hodge, of Philadelphia, for ap- in consequence was a matter of easy compupellant. Glenn C. Mead and Edwin 0. Lew-tation as well before as after the change was is, Asst. City Sols., and Michael J. Ryan, actually made. The first contention finds its City Sol., all of Philadelphia, for appellee. answer in several of our recent cases. In
Deer v. Sheraden Borough, 220 Pa. 307, 69 Atl. STEWART, J.  Willow Grove avenue, 814, speaking of the act of 1891, we said: a public street in the city of Philadelphia
"It provides comprehensively for proceedings upon which appellant's lot abuts, was opened intended to be instituted by municipalities in by ordinance under date of 6th April, 1894. all cases of laying out, opening, widening, and Under this opening ordinance proceedings building of bridges, piers, abutments, sewers,
extending streets, alleys, and lanes, and for the were instituted in the court of quarter ses- and other works, and for ascertaining in one sions in 1894 for the assessment of damages, proceeding all the damages suffered by all abutand a road jury was appointed, which, after ting owners affected thereby.'
 Following this, in Ogontz Avenue, 225 hearing evidence, filed its report November 15, 1894. By ordinance adopted 28th July, Pa. 126, 73 Atl. 1096, we said: 1911, the setting of curb and the paving of ly contemplates that all damages shall be as
"As to abutting owners, the act of 1891 clearsidewalks on that section of Willow Grove sessed in a single proceeding, and shall accrue avenue which included the frontage of ap- to those persons entitled thereto at the time pellant's lot was directed. Agreeably to this of the assessment.” later ordinance appellant proceeded to curb The case last cited distinguishes between and pave. The natural surface of her side, the rights of abutting owners and the rights
*For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep'r Indexes
of owners of property adjoining property that the use and accommodation of the owner of is abutting, but this distinction in no wise said land. This crossing was used by the then affects the present case. This is the case of owner of the land and his successors in title an abutting owner, and, in the opinion of the until 1902, when the defendant company for court in the case last cited, it is distinctly purposes of its own removed it, leaving the declared that, as to abutting owners:
owners of the land without means of access. “There is an actual taking within the mean to that portion which had been separated ing of the law when the street is ordered to be therefrom by the railroad. The defendant. opened and proper notice has been served up company having persistently refused to reon the property owners affected thereby.”
place the crossing, the plaintiffs, present ownWhen in 1894 the city by ordinance opened ers of the land, filed their bill reciting the Willow Grove avenue, it appropriated the en-above facts, and praying that a mandatory tire street including sidewalks (McDevitt v. order issue to compel its replacement. The Gas Company, 160 Pa. 367, 28 Atl. 948), and it
answer filed concedes the plaintiffs' right to was then the injury was done of which ap- the crossing, but denies their right to the repellant complains. It follows that her only lief prayed for, on the ground that the statremedy was under the act of 1891.
ute which confers the right to a crossing proThe appeal is dismissed at the cost of vides also a remedy where the crossing is appellant.
withheld, and insists that to this remedy
plaintiffs must be confined. The case was. (245 Pa. 35) GREEN et al. v. BALTIMORE & O. R. co. heard on bill, answer, and evidence, and a
mandatory order requiring defendant to re (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. April 6, 1914.)
store the crossing was entered, which on, 1. RAILROADS (8 102*)—PRIVATE CROSSINGS-appeal to the superior court was affirmed, VESTED RIGHTS.
The present appeal is from the decree of afÀ property owner's right to a private firmance. crossing over a railroad track, where the right
 As in the lower court and in the supe of way has been acquired by condemnation, is a vested right as sacred as any other property rior court, so here, the only question raised right.
is that of jurisdiction. The position taken [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Railroads, by appellant assumes the appropriateness, Cent. Dig. 88 306-314, 769; Dec. Dig. § 102.*] the adequacy, and the exclusiveness of the 2. RAILROADS (8 102*)-RESTORATION OF PRI- remedy provided by the statute, where a VATE CROSSINGS-MANDATORY INJUNCTION. wrong is done such as is complained of here.
A court of equity has jurisdiction by mandatory injunction to compel a railroad company
If upon examination it is found that the remto restore a private crossing which it has edy lacks any one of these characteristics, it wrongfully demolished; the remedy prescribed is not necessarily a barrier to the jurisdiction by Act Feb. 19, 1849 (P. L. 81) § 12, providing here invoked. In section 12 of the act of for the recovery of damages for failure to maintain such crossing, not being exclusive, February 19, 1849 (P. L. 84), investing railand being inadequate in such case.
road companies with the right of eminent [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Railroads, domain, it is provided: Cent. Dig. 8$ 306-314, 769; Dec. Dig. § 102.*)
“That for the accommodation of all persons Appeal from Superior Court.
owning or possessing land through which the Bill for mandatory injunction by Robert M. such company to make, or cause to be made, a
said railroad may pass, it shall be the duty of Green and another against the Baltimore & good and sufficient causeway or causeways, Ohio Railroad Company. From a decree for whenever the same may be necessary, to enable plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
the occupant or occupants of said lands to
cross or pass over the same, with wagons, carts The facts appear in the opinion of the Su- and implements of husbandry as occasion may preme Court, and in the opinion of the Supe- require; and the said causeway or causeways,
when so made, shall be maintained and kept in rior Court by Orlady, J., in Green v. Balti- good repair by such company. more & Ohio Railroad Co., 52 Pa. Super. Ct. company shall neglect or refuse on request, to 524.
make such causeway or causeways,
or when Argued before FELL, C. J., and BROWN, company shall be liable to pay any person agi
made, to keep the same in good order, the said MESTREZAT, STEWART, and MOSCHZIS- grieved thereby all damages sustained by such KER, JJ.
person in consequence of such neglect or refus
al; such damages to be assessed and ascertained W. B. Linn, G. H. Stein, and H. B. Gill, all in the same manner as provided in the last
, of Philadelphia, for appellant. J. B. Han- section for the assessment of damages.” num, of Chester, for appellees.
Of course, if what was sought by the bill
filed in the present case was the recovery of STEWART, J. The Baltimore & Philadel- damages, by way of compensation for the inphia Railroad Company, to whose rights the convenience and loss suffered and sustained Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, the de- by plaintiffs in consequence of the defendfendant in this proceeding, has succeeded, ac- ant's failure through neglect or refusal to quired its right of way upon and over the lands supply the crossing, the plaintiffs were in of Peter W. Green in 1885 by condemnation the wrong court. Unquestionably this statuproceeding, and, as required by law, construct-tory remedy in such case would be both aped a farm crossing over its said railroad for propriate and adequate. But the bill here is.
•For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep'r Indexen not for the recovery of damages; it asks parent as it is here. Speaking of the obnone; what it asks, and all it asks, is that struction of a right of way, Mr. Justice defendant be required to supply to the plain- i Trunkey, in Hacke's Appeal, 101 Pa. 245, tiffs a convenience which the latter have a says: legal right to demand, and which the defend- "A judgment for damages does not transfer ant company is under a legal duty to pro- the plaintiff's property in the way, to the devide. To hold that they must be content fendant, as would a judgment in trover or treswith damages for the inconvenience they have store enjoyment to the owner.
pass for taking goods. Nor will the law re
He may have been put to by defendant's unjustifiable refus- repeated actions for damages, and neither gain al to supply the crossing is equivalent to say- enjoyment nor lose his right thereto. The law ing that neither the right conferred by the tled to a remedy that will restore him to en
does not offer an adequate remedy. He is entistatute nor the duty imposed was absolute, joyment, and is not confined to actions at law and that the railroad company can escape the for damages resulting from obstructions.” duty and defeat the right by a process of The appellant's sole reliance is upon the commutation-by paying the damages as adjudication in the case of Dimmick v. D., L. sessed in successive suits against it for the & W. R. R. Co., 180 Pa. 468, 36 Atl. 866. The inconvenience suffered by the
the plaintiffs decision in that case has been largely misthrough the defendant company's default. understood; not that the per curiam opinion We cannot give assent to any such view. filed is in the least ambiguous, but chiefly
 We are dealing with a vested right in because it has too frequently been overlooked the plaintiffs to a private crossing on their that the opinion nowhere rests the decision own lands over the defendant's tracks, a right on the views expressed by the court below as sacred as any other property right, which which appear at great length in the report. has been disturbed and its free exercise pre- While the facts in that case are very closely vented by the defendant, not only without a analogous to those we have here, there is semblance of right, but in open disregard of this very marked distinction which, without the statutory duty imposed on it to provide more, would have justified a dismissal of the and maintain the means of its enjoyment. plaintiffs' bill. In that case, as here, the bill Can the plaintiffs be thus dispossessed of sought to compel the railroad company to their property and have no remedy for its re- construct a farm crossing. The railroad covery? It is little less than mockery to say company had neglected its duty for more to them, you may get damages for the in-than 35 years, and during all this period the convenience you have suffered in consequence, complaining party had made no attempt to that is, in consequence of a dispossession ef- enforce their right, a fact specially emphafected by a party without pretense of right sized in the opinion. All that was decided in to the thing itself. The right of these plain the case was (1) that the bill did not present tiffs in the crossing was the gift of the state, a case for relief in equity, and (2) that plainand no power but that of the state could de- tiffs had an adequate remedy at law under prive them of it. The state had delegated to the act of February 19, 1849, which it was the defendant company its power in this re- their duty to resort to. Both conclusions gard, to be exercised only, however, in the may well be derived from the one fact referway prescribed. By the ninth section of the red to; and, from the prominence given it in act of June 7, 1901 (P. L. 531), the power is the opinion, it was doubtless allowed congiven to railroad companies to discontinue trolling significance. and remove private crossings under prescrib- For the reasons we have stated, the ased conditions; but the removal and discon- signments of error are overruled, and the detinuance of the plaintiffs' crossing was not cree is affirmed, at cost of appellant. effected pursuant to any law or agreeably to any established or pretended right. There
(245 Pa. 202) fore the right remains in the plaintiffs in its BOOTH V. KEYSTONE SPINNING MILLS original force and vigor, except as we shall
CO. now say to them that you have been dispos- (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. May 4, sessed of the thing itself by an intruder, and
1914.) you must be content with compensation for MASTER AND SERVANT (8 276*)—INJURIES TO the inconvenience you have suffered. We SERVANT-DANGEROUS MACHINERY. have no hesitancy in adjudging the statutory Where plaintiff was assisting a boss spinremedy prescribed in the act to be neither ap-sufficient to show that the injury was caused by
ner in repairing a machine, evidence held inpropriate nor adequate for the injury here failure to provide proper machinery. complained of. We think it manifest that [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Master and the only purpose in providing it was to fur- Servant, Cent. Dig: 88 950-952, 954, 959, 970, nish the means to quicken the defaulting 976; Dec. Dig. g 276.*] railroad company in the discharge of the du- Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Phil. ty the act imposed. Because the plaintiffs adelphia County. might have adopted it for that purpose is no Action by Samuel Booth against the Keyreason that they should be denied the right stone Spinning Mills Company. Judgment to equitable relief, when the inadequacy of for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. the remedy to right the wrong done is so ap-| firmed.
•For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep'r Indexes
The undisputed evidence disclosed that the the work, nor was it cut in order to be renegligence of the boss spinner was the nat- placed by a new one. The accident did not ural, primary, and proximate cause of the occur in the use of the machinery, but it injury.to plaintiff, but no issue involving this happened while repairs were being made, and question was raised by the pleadings, or at was the result of too hasty action upon the the trial, nor was the question of contributory part of the boss spinner in cutting the wire negligence on the part of the defendant de after requesting the plaintiff to hold it, but termined.
without waiting for him to get the wire withArgued before FELL, C. J., and MESTRE in his grasp. The men were not at the time ZAT, POTTER, ELKIN, and STEWART, JJ. working with the wire, but were engaged in Harry S. Ambler, Jr., Walter P. Bishop, engaged, that the wire obstructed them in
repairing the machinery, and found, while so and Ardemus Stewart, all of Philadelphia, their work. The machinist therefore directed for appellant. A. D. Wiler, of Philadelphia, the wire to be cut. The boss spinner carried for appellee.
out the direction, and told the plaintiff to
take hold of the wire, evidently to prevent POTTER, J. In this action plaintiff the end from flying. It is also apparent from sought to recover damages for the loss of an the evidence that plaintiff was not given sufeye. He was employed by the defendant com- ficient time to grasp the wire, and that the pany as a spinner. It appears that in con- boss spinner cut it before the plaintiff sucnection with the spinning machinery a wire ceeded in seizing it. The direct and proxiwas used, known as a faller wire, which was mate cause of the accident was therefore the fastened at one end of the spinning mule and negligence of the boss spinner in failing to ran through fingers placed about three feet give the plaintiff time to carry out the direcapart. The plaintiff testified that on the day tion given to him before making the cut. For of the accident he went to the third floor to this reason judgment was properly entered assist a machinist and the boss spinner to for the defendant non obstante veredicto. make some repairs. His statement as to the We think the court below was clearly right in manner in which the accident occurred is as its conclusion that the character of the wire follows:
which was used was not to be considered as “I was down on my knees reaming out col- the proximate cause of the accident. Nor do lars, and the machinist was standing alongside we find anything in the testimony which can of me, and he was helping me; he was telling me what to do; and so just as he looked around fairly be regarded as indicating beforehand and said, 'This wire is in my way, cut it and that the making of the repairs would necesget it out of the road, Mr. Gilbert said, 'I will sarily involve any interference with the wire. soon fix that;' and he said, 'Booth, grab the As it turned out, it was discovered that the wire.' I dropped the reamer, and was just about to grab the wire, when' it flew up and wire obstructed the work of the machinist, hit me in the eye.”
and to get it out of the way, the boss spinner, He also testified that the machinist was the having asked the plaintiff to hold it, promptparticular boss of the job in which they were ly proceeded to cut the wire without giving engaged at the time of the accident. The him time to seize it. The accident therefore right to recover here was based upon the resulted directly, not from the presence or proposition that the wire furnished was not character of the wire, but from the manner the kind in general use. Fault was found of its removal. We do not see that the court with it upon the ground that it was too hard, below could have properly reached any other and was more dangerous on that account in conclusion than that which it did. case of a break owing to its greater tendency The assignment of error is overruled, and to fly. It was suggested that a softer wire the judgment is affirmed. would not be so apt to cause injury by flying in case of a break. The court below in en
(245 Pa. 150) tering judgment non obstante veredicto ad- MATLACK V. FAYETTE R. PLUMB, Inc. mitted that it might be that defendant should
(Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. April 20, be held to have foreseen that the use of a
1914.) bard wire might entail injury/ when in the MASTER AND SERVANT ($ 286*)-INJURIES TO ordinary course of the work it became neces- SERVANT-FAILURE TO GUARD MACHINERY. sary to cut it, but that in this case the injury In an action to recover for negligence of a did not result from an ordinary or usual suc- master in failing to guard an emery wheel as cession of events. The facts were not in dis- required by Act May 2, 1905 (P. 'L. 352), a
nonsuit was properly entered, where plaintiff pute, and but one conclusion as to the cause proved that the wheel was guarded, and there of the injury could reasonably be drawn was no evidence that it was not a proper guard. from them; it therefore became the duty of [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Master and the court to determine whether or not the Servant, Cent. Dig. $$ 1001, 1006, 1008, 1010 injury was a natural or proximate conse- Dec. 'Dig. & 286.* ]
1015, 1017–1033, 1036–1042, 1044, 1046–1050; quence which could fairly have been antici
Moschzisker, J., dissenting. pated by the defendant as likely to follow from the use of the wire. Admittedly the Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Philawire did not break in the ordinary course of delphia County.
*For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep'r Indexes