William I. Schaffer

The case involved a dispute between railroad companies and landowners over rights to maintain a telegraph line on a former right-of-way easement across a farm in Butler County. Jacob Hite had granted the easement in 1881 for railroad purposes, but the railroads later abandoned the line by building a new branch, passing abandonment resolutions, obtaining ICC approval, removing tracks, and blowing up a bridge, with no intent to resume rail operations. The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the defendants from interfering with the telegraph line, which was installed and primarily maintained by the Western Union Telegraph Company but used in part for railroad signaling. The court affirmed the lower court's decree that the plaintiffs had no rights under the grant after abandonment, reasoning that the easement's language tied it strictly to railroad use and operation benefiting the grantor's property, so it could not be preserved for the telegraph company's benefit even with incidental railroad wire usage; it directed a reasonable removal period before dismissing the bill.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved exceptions filed by the widow of Chester A. McDaniel to the administrator's account in Orphans’ Court, claiming she had not received her exemption and that personal property valued over $34,000 had not been accounted for, with a suggestion for an audit. The administrator petitioned the court to require the widow to post a $1,000 bond covering audit costs, citing her alleged desertion of the deceased and potential expense to the estate. The lower court granted the petition and ordered the bond as a condition for appointing an auditor. The court reversed this decree, holding there was no authority for requiring such a bond and noting that the court itself could hear the matter to avoid audit expenses.

family lawpropertyprocedure

The case involved a suit by plaintiff Scott against defendant Troop Water Heater Co. for breach of an alleged oral contract to sell 100 water heaters at $15 each, reached via telephone after Scott saw a circular offering a miscellaneous warehouse lot. Defendant denied forming any such contract for 100 new heaters and had only delivered and been paid for a single sample heater. The court held that no enforceable contract existed under the Uniform Sales Act (requiring a writing, part payment, or acceptance and receipt of goods for sales of $500 or more), because the single heater was shipped separately for inspection rather than as part performance of the larger deal, the parties' communications showed no meeting of the minds on the terms or condition of the heaters, and the statute's requirements were not met. Judgment was therefore entered for the defendant.

business & regulatory

The case concerned the inheritance rights of Helen M. Githens, who was adopted in New Jersey by a decree that reserved her right to inherit from her natural parents, in the estate of her natural uncle who died intestate domiciled in Pennsylvania with all his property there. The court decided that she was not entitled to share in the estate. The core reasoning was that Pennsylvania's Intestate Act of 1917 explicitly bars adopted persons from inheriting from their natural collateral relatives without exceptions, and while the full faith and credit clause requires recognition of her adopted status, it does not require Pennsylvania to apply New Jersey law or the decree to alter its own rules of descent for property located within the state.

family lawproperty

This case involved a lawsuit by the plaintiff against Pittsburgh Railways Co. for damages from injuries sustained when her skidding automobile collided with the defendant's streetcar on a bridge. After the jury disagreed, the trial court entered judgment for the defendant, but the appellate court reversed this decision to allow a new trial. The court reasoned that it was a jury question whether the motorman was negligent in not applying brakes sooner when the skidding car approached his path, as the events unfolded quickly and he had a duty to keep a lookout and control the car to avoid dangers he could see in time, per established principles from prior cases.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved an appeal by Warner Bros. Theatres, Inc. from a judgment upholding a tax settlement of $8,262.01 under Pennsylvania's Act of May 16, 1935, as amended, which imposed a 10% excise tax on corporations for the privilege of doing business in the state, measured by net income as reported to and ascertained by the federal government for the fiscal year ending in 1937. The court decided that the tax was constitutional and that the corporation was liable, affirming the lower court's judgment. The core reasoning was that the levy was an excise tax using federal net income merely as a fixed base for measurement rather than delegating legislative taxing power, that variations in federal deductions did not affect the state's authority, and that the statute applied uniformly to all covered corporations without violating state constitutional provisions on delegation, revival of laws, or uniformity.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryfederal power