See "Animals."

Stock.

Corporate stock, see "Corporations," 10, 11.

Streams.

See "Waters and Water Courses."

Streets.

See "Highways;" "Municipal Corporations."

SUBROGATION.

When allowed.

1. Where a corporation assigns book accounts to its president to indemnify him as indorser of its notes, a receiver of the corporation, thereafter appointed, on paying a note so indorsed, is not entitled to subrogation to the benefit of the indemnity given to the president, and therefore the receiver will not be compelled to pay such note in preference to other claims. --Whitehead v. Hamilton Rubber Co., (N. J. Ch.) 27 A. 897.

2. A purchaser of property of a firm, one of the members of which had died, agreed to assume the firm debts. The wife of the deceased member held a note against the firm, which had apparently been paid; but she claimed that it had not, and insisted on its payment, in addition to what would otherwise have been her share of the purchase money, which was finally done. After the negotiations were closed, it was discovered that the deceased partner, instead of applying money drawn out of the firm to the payment of the note, as the books showed, had appropriated it to his own use. Held, that he must be regarded as a debtor to the firm, to the amount so misappropriated by him, and the purchaser, having succeeded to all the rights of the firm, could enforce the claim against his estate. In re Miller's Estate, (Pa. Sup.) 27 A. 698; Appeal of Miller, Id.

To rights of mortgagee.

3. Where a mortgage is given on land owned in common by husband and wife to secure a debt of the husband, a purchaser of the husband's interest in the land, who pays off the mortgage debt, is not entitled to be subrogated to the mortgagee's rights as against the wife's interest in the land, since she was only surety for her husband, and was as effectually released by the payment of the debt by the purchaser as if her husband, the principal debtor, had paid it.-Zeller v. Henry, (Pa. Sup.) 27 A.

559.

To rights of judgment creditors.

4. A note on which judgment was rendered against A. & L. was executed by them, while partners, to secure a joint debt. After the judgment they dissolved partnership; A. paying off an individual obligation of L., who, in consideration, agreed to pay such judgment. There

after, property of A. was levied upon, and the amount of the judgment collected therefrom. Held, that A. was entitled to be subrogated to the rights of the judgment creditor against L.Gilfillan v. Dewoody, (Pa. Sup.) 27 A. 782.

5. Act April 22, 1856, § 9, provides that when the land of several persons is subject to the lien of a judgment in which one should have subrogation against another, one having such right may obtain a rule on the plaintiff, on payment of the judgment, to assign it for such uses as the court may direct; and the court may direct to what uses it shall be assigned, and, when assigned, direct all executions thereupon, so as to subserve the rights and equities of all parties whose land is subject thereto. Appellees, grantees of oil leases from appellant, obtained an assignment of certain prior judgments against appellant under the above act. Held, that the court properly awarded them a writ of vend. ex. on said land, subject to their own leaseholds.-Porter v. Vanderlin, (Pa. Sup.) 27 A. 872.

See "Writs."

Summons.

Supplementary Proceedings. See "Execution," 10.

SURFACE WATER. Change of drain by borough.

1. In an action against a borough for changing a drain, thereby causing the flow of surface water on plaintiff's land to be increased, defendant could show that less surface water flowed through the ditch after than before the change made by the borough.-Frederick v. Borough of Lansdale, (Pa. Sup.) 27 A. 563.

Liability of railroad company.

2. In an action against a railroad company for damages to plaintiff's property from an overflow of surface water from ditches and drains on defendant's road, there being evidence that they were in good condition; that a storm during the night caused a cave-in, filling one of them up; and that it was the heaviest fall of rain ever known by persons who had lived in the vicinity for many years, the rain all falling within five hours, the question of whether the damage was caused by the act of God was properly left to the jury.-Sentman v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., (Md.) 27 A. 1074.

TAXATION.

See, also, "Express Companies." Collection of taxes by road masters, giving bond, see "Towns," 2. Of corporations, see "Stare Decisis." Parol evidence to show that assessor was sworn, see "Evidence," 32.

Liability of city for state and county taxes.

1. Tax Act April 11, 1866, requiring cities and townships to give the first fruits of taxation to the state and county, is modified by the charter of the city of Paterson only so far as to give the city authorities until December 20th to pay over the state and county taxes due for the year. Shields v. City of Paterson, (N. J. Sup.) 27 A. 803.

2. The proper remedy by city authorities to attack illegal appropriations of money made by the board of chosen freeholders of the county is by writ of certiorari.-Shields v. City of Paterson, (N. J. Sup.) 27 A. 803; Same v. Grear, Id. 807.

3. On an application for mandamus to compel a city to pay state and county taxes of 1892, it is no defense that there were illegal appropriations made in 1891 by the board of chosen freeholders of the county, which require the imposition of an additional amount of taxes in the tax resolution of 1892.-Shields v. City of Paterson, (N. J. Sup.) 27 A. 803; Same v. Grear, Id. 807.

Accounts between state and county.

4. Under Act June 1, 1889, authorizing the state for her own use to impose taxes on personal property in the different cities and counties, and providing that they shall, be collected by the counties, and turned over to the state at a certain time, the county treasurer,, in receiving and turning over to the state taxes assessed against a county, is the agent of the county, so that, he having embezzled the money, the county is still liable to the state.-Commonwealth v. Philadelphia County, (Pa. Sup.) 27 A. 546.

5. Under Act June 1, 1889, § 16, providing that a third of the net amount of tax that is collected and paid into the state treasury by a county shall be returned to the county for its own use, where the state, before the full amount of the county's tax has been paid, returns to the county part of its third, the state is not entitled to have the amount so returned repaid to it, there being no question of the ability or willingness of the county to pay the balance of the tax as soon as the amount is

finally determined. - Commonwealth v. Philadelphia County, (Pa. Sup.) 27 A. 546.

6. Act April 29, 1844, (P. L. 501.) § 42, makes it the duty of every city treasurer on payment of interest on any evidence of debt of the city to assess a state tax on such evidence of debt, and deduct it from the interest, and hold it until it is paid to the state. Act April 30, 1864, (P. L. 218,) § 4, requires the treasurer to pay the tax to the state within 30 days after the interest is due, and to make returns of the indebtedness outstanding on the 1st day of January, and provides that on receipt of the returns the auditor general shall settle the account of each city with the state, fix the tax due and unpaid, and transmit notice of the amount to the officers making the returns, which the attorney general shall sue for if not paid in 60 days. Held, that the city is made principal debtor for the tax, and that, in the collection and paying over thereof, the treasurer is the agent of the city, and not of the state, though he gives a bond to the stat and receives a commission from the state as compensation for such services; and therefore the city is still liable for the tax, though he collected it, he having embezzled and failed to return it to the state. - Commonwealth v. Philadelphia City and County, (Pa. Sup.) 27 A.

553.

Right of state to penalties and in

terest.

7. The embezzlement by the city's treasurer of the tax on loans having been facilitated by the neglect of the state's officers to enforce payment, and there having been room for doubt whether the treasurer was not, for the purpose

of collecting and paying over such tax, the agent of the state, penalties in the way of inshould not be imposed on the city for detencreased interest and attorney general's fees tion of the tax.-Commonwealth v. Philadelphia City and County, (Pa. Sup.) 27 A. 553. eral under authority of Act March 30, 1811, of 8. Though a settlement by the auditor genthe state's account against a county for the personalty tax, when unappealed from, is conof the tax, all equitable defenses may be made; clusive, still, in assumpsit to enforce payment and notwithstanding Act June 1, 1889, § 16, shows that, for the purpose of stimulating prompt payment, the county was not to get its one-third until the whole tax was paid in, when it should be returned, nevertheless where the county has collected the entire tax, and paid it to its treasurer, who was required at certain fixed times to make payment to the state, and the state fails to make him comply with the law, but through its officers permits him to retain the money, which he subsequently embezzles, the state can recover only its two-thirds of the tax, with interest thereon, without penalties for tardiness in payment.Commonwealth v. Philadelphia County, (Pa. Sup.) 27 A. 546.

9. Where a county, on account of the embezzlement of its treasurer, assisted by the laxity of the state's officers in enforcing its claims for personalty tax, contests payment of the balance of personalty tax settled against it in favor of the state for a certain year, though the treasurer had been in office only the first five months of the year, and the county had therefore had the remainder of the year for investigation and ascertainment of its exact liability, the state will be allowed interest and penalties in the way of attorney general's fees on such part of the balance of the tax as the state is entitled to retain, but not on the third of the entire tax which, under Act June 1, 1889, § 16, the state is obliged to return to the county for its own use. Commonwealth v. Philadelphia City and County, (Pa. Sup.) 27 A. 551.

Taxable persons and property.

10. Under Act June 8, 1891, which provides active trustee for the use of any other person, for the taxation of bonds when held by an etc., bonds held by an active trustee who resides in Pennsylvania, and was appointed by the will of a resident of such state, are taxable there, though the courts of another state exercised jurisdiction of the settlement of the estate of the testator by whose will the trust was created; especially, where all the beneficiaries affected by the collection of the tax are domiciled in the former state.-Guthrie v. Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co., (Pa. Sup.) 27 A. 1052.

11. A corporation issued certain stock to an inventor in consideration of the exclusive right, under his patents, to make and use, or license to be made and used, the inventions covered by such patents within certain specified territory; but no apparatus or tangible property, nor the use of any such property, was received for such stock. Held, that such capital stock was within the decisions which hold that no tax can be imposed by state laws on patent rights granted by the United States. Com. v. Philadelphia Co., 22 A. 843, 145 Pa. St. 142, distinguished.-Commonwealth v. Philadelphia Co., (Pa. Sup.) 27 A. 378; Same v. Edison Electric Light Co., Id. 379.

12. Under Rev. St. c. 6, § 9, providing that taxes on realty are to be assessed in 3, defining realty as all lands and buildings the town where the estate lies, and section erected on or affixed thereto, and chapter 1, § 6, rule 10, defining lands to include tenements, hereditaments, rights thereto, and interests therein, the water pipes, hydrants, and conduits of a water company, laid through the streets of a city or town, are taxable as real

estate to the company in possession of them in said city or town, though the company own no other property in said town, and the works be situated in another.-Inhabitants of Paris v. Norway Water Co., 27 A. 143, 85 Me. 330. Exemptions.

13. A corporation whose business is to. manufacture coke, but which has and continually exercises the power to mine its own coal to supply itself in part with the raw material for manufacturing coke, is not a corporation organized "exclusively" for manufacturing purposes, within the meaning of Act 1889, (P. L. p. 429, § 21,) exempting such corporations from taxation on their capital stock. - Commonwealth v. Juniata Coke Co., (Pa. Sup.) 27 A. 373; Same v. Savage Fire Brick Co., Id. 374. 14. But so much of the capital of such corporation as is employed in manufacturing is exempt, since the mining of its own coal does not destroy its character as a manufacturing corporation, but merely subjects the capital employed in mining to taxation.-Commonwealth v. Juniata Coke Co., (Pa. Sup.) 27 A. 373; Same v. Savage Fire Brick Co., Id. 374.

15. A corporation organized under the general law providing for manufacturing companies for the purpose of manufacturing iron and steel, and which is a manufacturing company, and nothing else, is a corporation organized "exclusively" for manufacturing purposes, and its capital stock is exempt from taxation, though it has the ancillary power, which it has never exercised, to own mineral lands, and mine ore therefrom. Com. v. Westinghouse Electric & Manuf'g Co., 24 A. 1107, 1111, 151 Pa. St. 265, distinguished.-Commonwealth v. Pottsville Iron & Steel Co., (Pa. Sup.) 27 A.

371.

16. Where a corporation exclusively organized for manufacturing purposes engages in other business, in addition to manufacturing, and pays the taxes due on so much of its capital as is used in business other than manufacturing, it is not liable to pay further taxes. Com. v. Wm. Mann Co., 24 A. 601, 150 Pa. St. 64, followed. -Commonwealth v. J. B. Lippincott Co., (Pa. Sup.) 27 A. 10.

17. A bridge company whose only business is to buy, in a rough and unfinished condition, all the necessary lumber, iron, and other materials, and, at its own shops, finish, shape, design, and make such materials suitable for use, and put the same together in the erection of bridges, roofs, and other structures and machinery, is a corporation "exclusively for manufacturing purposes," within the meaning of act of 1889, (P. I. p. 429, § 21,), exempting such corporations from taxation on their capital stock.-Commonwealth v. Keystone Bridge Co., (Pa. Sup.) 27 A. 1; Same v. Pittsburgh Bridge Co., Id. 4.

18. Act 1889, (P. L. 431,) § 21, exempts from taxation the capital stock of corporations "organized exclusively" for manufacturing purposes, and which are actually "carrying on manufacturing within the state." Held, that a corporation chartered for the purpose of "manufacturing, buying, selling, and dealing in" certain commodities, and actually engaged in buying and selling as well as manufacturing, is not wholly exempt, but the amount of capital employed otherwise than in manufacturing is taxable, as that part of the charter which provides for buying, selling, and dealing" is not authorized by any statute.-Commonwealth v. Thackra Manuf'g Co., (Pa. Sup.) 27 A. 13. Assessment.

19. An assessment made by two assessors legally chosen and sworn and another person chosen and sworn as a selectman only is void.Jordan v. Hopkins, 27 A. 91, 85 Me. 159. Publication of delinquent list.

20. Under Rev. St. c. 6, § 188, requiring the collector, within 12 months from the commitment of his bills, to make a copy of them as regards taxes assessed on real estate of

nonresidents then unpaid, which copy the treasurer shall record, and shall have published in some newspaper published in the county three weeks successively, such publication to be within three months after the date of the collector's return, held, that all three publications must be made within said three months, and a failure in this respect avoids the tax title acquired under the proceedings. United Copper Min. & Smelt. Co. v. Franks, 27 A. 185, 85 Me. 321.

Lien.

21. Act April 29, 1844, (P. L. 501,) which authorizes a sale of seated or occupied and improved land in satisfaction of taxes due thereon, where no personal property can be found thereon sufficient to pay the taxes, and where the owner refuses or neglects to pay them, was not restricted or in any manner interfered with by Act 1867, § 3, (P. L. 44,) which declares that where the lien of a mortgage is prior to all other liens, except taxes, assessments, etc., whose lien, though afterwards accruing, has priority given it by law, the lien of said mortgage shall not be destroyed or in any way affected by any judicial or other sale whatever; and hence a purchaser at foreclosure sale does not take the premises discharged of their liability to be sold for taxes assessed against the land after the mortgage was recorded, and before the foreclosure sale. - Pottsville Lumber Co. v. Wells, (Pa. Sup.) 27 A. 408.

Priority over landlord's lien.

22. Where a landlord, at a sale under a distress warrant against his tenant for arrears of rent, purchases a growing crop of wheat, and takes possession of the leased premises, a subsequent purchaser of the same crop, at a sale for delinquent taxes against the prior owners of the land, may enter on the land, and harvest and remove the wheat when it matures, and retain it as against such landlord, though the lease required the tenant to pay such taxes.Hazlett v. McCutcheon, (Pa. Sup.) 27 A. 1086. Sale for nonpayment.

23. The Municipal Code of Baltimore (article 49, 47) provides that when a lot is chargeable with taxes, and subject to a lease for a term of years, renewable forever, the collector shall, in the sale of the lot for taxes, first sell only the leasehold interest, provided the books of the city show that the lot is on lease, or the collector has "actual notice" thereof. Held, that the city collector was affected with "actual notice" of such a lease, when, after a decree for sale had been rendered in a proceeding to foreclose a mortgage on the leasehold, a petition was filed in such proceeding, signed by his attorney, and sworn to by his deputy, alleging that taxes were in arrears on the property "decreed to be sold," and praying that he might sell the property for taxes.-City of Baltimore v. Whittington, (Md.) 27 A. 984.

24. A landowner who goes to the treasurer's office to pay all overdue taxes, and thus prevent a sale of his land, and who explains his business to the treasurer, and pays all taxes demanded of him, has a right to rely on the treast rer's statement, and need not search the tax books for further taxes charged against his land; and a subsequent sale by the treasurer of land for taxes due, but not disclosed on such application, passes no title to the purchaser.Pottsville Lumber Co. v. Wells, (Pa. Sup.) 27 A. 408.

TELEGRAPH COMPANIES. Interference with telegraph line Action for penalty.

1. In an action to recover the penalty prescribed by R. L. c. 163, § 3641, for willfully interfering with a telegraph line maintained pursuant to said chapter, which provides (section 3633) that persons associated together to erect a line of telegraph may maintain the nec