The District Reports of Cases Decided in All the Judicial Districts of the State of Pennsylvania (Volume 5) (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos or missing text. Not indexed. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. 1896. Not illustrated. Excerpt: ... Leslie v. Carr. Applicable to questions arising before the passage of that Act are entirely inapplicable now. The judgment of a married woman, which was then presumably void, is now presumably valid. It is no longer necessary to such validity to set out on the record the facts which before the Act were necessary to give the judgment validity." The exceptions are overruled and the proceedings are affirmed. From Levi Leedom, Hollldaysburg, Pa. Sunday v. Hagenbuch. Practice, equity--Rules of court--Type-toritten bill. A bill In equity In type-writing Is not a compliance with the equity rules which require that "every bill shall be printed." Rule to show cause why the bill filed in this case should not be quashed and dismissed at the cost of the plaintiff, and that all proceedings stay in the meantime. C. P. Schuylkill Co., July T., 1896, No. 5, in Equity. On June 9,1896, Charles C. Sunday filed his bill in equity, which was in typewriting, against Anna D. Hagenbuch, Samuel C. McClure and James H. Hagenbuch, and containing a certificate of counsel "that we did not have time to print the bill." The prayer of the bill was to have certain deeds or conveyances declared void and fraudulent as against the plaintiff, and that the defendant be directed to deliver up the same for cancellation, and that a decree of specific performance of an alleged contract for the sale of real estate be made in favor of said plaintiff. On June 22, 1896, James H. Hagenbuch, one of the defendants, filed his affidavit, setting forth " that the bill in equity filed in the above stated case is not printed on white sized paper of a convenient size, as required by section 14 of rule in of the rules in equity; that counsel for plaintiff did not certify that his client, by reason of poverty, i...