Imagens da página

166; Miller on Partition, 159. It may set aside | division, was it made “so as to correspond with the inquisition for error, and may do so for one the parties in interest ?! The solution of this cause of complaint whether to the division or question depends on the rights of E. P. Swist as valuation, as numerous cases show. Thus it has tenant for life in possession of the one undivided been held that an erroneous valuation is alone half part of the property described in the writ. sufficient to justify such a decree: Galbraith That where there are lineal descendants, the V. Galbraith, supra, and numerous cases may widow is entitled to have her sbare set apart in be found in which inquests have been set aside land under the 36th section of the Act of 29th for a single error: Miller on Partition, 117; but March, 1832, was settled in Bishop's Appeal, no case has been cited by counsel nor found by supra, and recognized in McCall's Appeal, 56 the court in which the powers of the inquest Pa. St., 363; Gourley v. Kinley, 66 Id., 273; have been restricted to the matters of which Steel's Appeal, 86 Id., 244; Rankin's Appeal, complaint has been made. With "another” supra; Benfield's Estate, 7 W. N. C., 575. The inquest the proceedings necessarily commence 46th section of that act prescribes “like proceedanew: Gordon on Decedents, 365; and this ings” amongst collaterals; and that other lifecourt has no more power to interfere with the estates besides the widow's are contemplated exercise of its functions than it had with those is apparent from the proviso which expressly of the old jury. To restrict the powers of the mentions cases where there nay be "a lifejury would oftentimes defeat the purpose of estate, or life-estates." Rankin's Estate, 95 Pa. the Act of 1832 to promote in the first instance St., 358, expressly determined that Swift's estate the division of land so as to correspond with the was within its purview. There is nothing in rights of the parties; and have a tendency to this proviso relating to remainder-men which influence the jury to adjust its valuations so as conflicts with the theory that the sheriff should to equalize the purparts already made rather allot. The right there given to remainder-men than make its division accord with a just valua-'to accept or refuse the premises * * * in the tion. The functions of the jury are indivisible same manner as the lineal descendants may and consequently their finding must stand or do," relates to a subsequent state of the profall as a whole..

ceedings. That E. P. Swift acted upon an erroneous! “The object of partition is severance of postheory of his rights in the original proceeding, session. The life-tenant is a necessary party to is no reason, now that he has ascertained what the proceedings. It is the duty of the inquest his rights are, he should be denied their ascer- to set-off to the widow her share by metes and tion at the present stage of the proceeding. The bounds: Bishop's Appeat, 7 W. & S., 251. By decree in Rankin's Appeal does not restrict him analogy the same rule may be extended to other necessarily to the correction of the valuation; tenants for life. It is true this leaves the rebut rather contemplates the ordinary and usual mainder open to further partition at the death consequences resulting from showing an erron- of the tenant for life, but this is an inconeous valuation. There is nothing in the law venience that arises where the interests of the which recognizes any distinction between the tenant are different in the time of their durajurisdiction of this court where the exceptions tion: Poundstone v. Everly, 7 Casey, 11." have been filed by a tenant for life and where Rankin's Appeal, supra, per PAXSON, J. they have been filed by a tenant in fee. On the It follows from the foregoing that the division contrary, in Bishop's Appeal, 7 W. & S., 251, by the jury of the property described in the the inquest was set aside at the instance of the writ into two purparts of equal value is consistwidow, with direction to the court below to ent with their finding that such property could "proceed to have a partition of the estate made,“ be parted and divided without prejudice to or if practicable, and if not, an appraisement spoiling the whole thereof and so as to correthereof be made, as directed by the Act of As- spond with the parties in interest."'. sembly passed in this behalf.” “The Act of The property described in the writ having Assembly passed in this behalf” makes no dis- been divided into two purparts of equal value crimination between owners in such cases. The as found by the jury, it became the duty of the ground of the jurisdiction of this court, when sheriff to allot to Mrs. Rankin in fee and to Mr. the finding of the jury is attacked, is error; and Swift for life, respectively, “such part as he when that has been shown, it has no option but thought good: Coke's Litt. 167 b; Allnatt on to set the whole aside, and award an alias writ Partition, 72; Miller on Partition, 393; Dana v. of “inquest to make partition of the real estate Jackson, 6 Pa. St., 231. This was a step in the of * * * decedent."

proceedings on which the sheriff must necessaIf then the new jury bad power to make a re- / rily be the actor. He had charge of the writ andronduct of the proceedings from its issuance PER CURIAM:

Error to C. C. P. of Dauphin ('0.-Falster v, Roumfort. until it return. It is his discretion which must

Judgment affirmed. Wareham v. Rummel. Judgment be exercised in the allotment, and his action

attirmed. Hamilton Steeled Wheel Co. v. Com'th. Judgmust a fi rmatively appear as a necessary basis ment affirmed in each case. for further proceedings: Sampson's Appeal, 4 Appeals from the C. ('. P. of Dauphin Co.--Auctmutz's. W. &

Decree affirmed and appeal disinissed at the costs of the S., 86. The parties interested had no

appellant. Douden's. Decree affirmed and appeal dispower in the matter The record is therefore

| missed at the costs of the appellant. fatally defective in that it fails to show an allot

Appeal from the 0. ('. of Dauphin Co.-Russ'. Decree ment by the sheriff. How can this defect be affirmed and appeal dismissed at the costs of the appel

lant. cu red 2 Certainly not directly by this court by

| Error to C. C. P. of Franklin (0.-Schwartz v. Kyner. way of amendment. That in effect would be

Judgment atfirmed. Walter v. Imbrie. Judgment afan attem pt to do what it was said in Rankin's firmed. Winger v. Rife, Judgment affirmed. Appeal, supra, this court had no power to do. 6 Appeal from the 0. C. of Fulton Co.-Gracey's. Decree

affirmed and appeal dismissed at the costs of the appelThe allot ment to a tenant for life is a discretion

lant. delegated to the sheriff which can be exercised

BY SHARSWOOD, C. J.: by him alone. There is as much reason for

1 Error to C. C. P. of Adams ('0.-Neaper v. New Era holding that this court cannot supply an omis- Life Insurance Co. Judgment reversed and venire facias sion of duty by the sheriff as that it cannot sup- | de novo awarded. ply that of a jury by amendment. But as the | BY MERCUR, J.:

Error to C. ('. P., No. 1, of Philadelphia Co.-Hollis v. functions of the jury as respects division and

Burns. Judgment affirmed. Error to C. C. P., No. 2,valuation are separate and distinct from that of

Thackara v. Mintzer. Judgment reversed and judgment the sheriff in allottment, there is no apparent | in favor of plaintiff in error non obstante reredicto. Error reason w hy this court should not afford the to C.C. P., No. 3.-Bell v. Kinnedy. Judgment affirmed. sheriff an opportunity for correction of an obvi- | Error to C. (. P., No. 4.-('arr v. Sellers. Judgment re

versed and venire facias de novo awarded. Olis inad vertence: McConnell v. Linton, 4 W.,

Appeals from the 0. C. of Philadelphia Co.-Biddle's. 357.. The defect may thus be readily cured Decree reversed at the costs of the appellees, and distriwithout sacrifice of principle, and the parties bution is ordered to be made conformably with this be saved the expense and delay of a plurics

opinion. Barger's, Hirst's, Philadelphia Trust Safe De

posit and Insurance Company's and Edwin DeForrest writ of inquest at this state of the procedings.

Hirst's. Decree is reversed and it is ordered that distri. The foregoing views renders unnecessary any bution be made conformably with this opinion. It is decision now on the exception with reference further ordered that the appellants each pay one-half of to the character of the division and to the valu

the costs of their respective appeal, and the appellees the ations m

other half. ade by the jury.

Error to C. C. P. of Berks Co.-('ooper v. Oriental SavNor is it proper that any decision should be lings & Loan Association. Judgment affirmed. Benjahow m ade on the exception to costs. In view min v. Zell. Judgment affirmed. Amberhower v. Milof the cha racter of the sheriff's office and of the | ler, Judgment reversed and venire facias de novo a warded.

Error to C. C. P. of Chester (0.--Crawford v. Davis. vast amo unt of business done there, it would be

Judgment reversed and venire sucias de novo awarded. unreasonable to expect him to follow every | Error to C. C. P. of Clearfield Co.-Dubree v. Albert. case that passes out of his hands to ascertain | Judgment affirmed. Pentz v. Clark. Judgment afwhether exceptions had been filed to his bill of firmed. costs. It seems only just under the circum

Error to C. ('. P. of ('umberland ('0.-Bradish v. McClel.

lan. Judgment affirmed. stances that he should be notified personally Error to C. C. P. of Lackawanna (0.--Sweetzer v. Alterthat exceptions have been filed.' This does not berry. Judgment affirmed. appear to have been done in this case.

Error to C. C. P. of Lehigh (40.-Pearson v. Hartman. The inquisition will be sent back to the sheriff

Judgment reversed, and now judgment in favor of the

plaintiff in error non obstante veredicto. Brobst v. Ruff. to make all otment of purparts to Mrs. Rankin Judgment affirmed. Binger v. Dankel. Judgment rein fee an d to E. P. Swift for life, respectively. versed and venire facias de novo awarded. On his on his return the exceptions as respects valua Error to C. ('. P. of Luzerne ('0.-Slutter v. Kirkendall. tion, division and costs, may be renewed, and

Judgment reversed and venire facias de novo awarded.

Appeal from the C. C. P. of Luzerne (0.-Frauenthal's. rothers as the parties see fit to take be filed.

Decree reversed and bill dismissed at the costs of the For M rs. Rankin, W. B. Negley, Esq.

appellee. For E. P . Swift, Messrs. Hampton & Dalzell.

Appeal from the 0.C. of Lycoming Co.-Taggart's. De

cree affirmed and appeal dismissed at the costs of the SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA.


Appeal from the C, C. P. of Schuylkill Co.-Garrett's. Silling in the Western District.

Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed at the costs of the

appellant. Yrt met in this city on Monday last (all the Appeal from the 0. C. of Snyder Co.-Bower's. Decree Justices bein

being present), when the following judgments affirmed and appeal dismissed at the costs of the apwere entered and opinions filed :



Appeal from the 0. C. of Berks Co.-Reeser's. Decree Appeal from the (.('. P. of Adams ('0.- Musselman's. reversed at costs of appellee and record remitted to the Decree reversed and bill dismissed at the costs of the Orphans' Court with instructions to enter a decree in appellees.

accordance with opinion. Certioruri to James Gilkyson, a Justice of the Peace of Error to C. C. P. of Bedford Co.-Koontz v. Howsware. Bucks Co.-Bauer v. Angeny. Judgment reversed. Order of court striking off appeal reversed and appeal

Appeal from the 0. C. of Clinton (0.-Bright's. Decree reinstated. reversed at the costs of the appellees, and distribution Appeals from the C.C. P. of Clinton Co.-Pardee's (four ordered in accordance with the opinion.

cases). Decrees reversed and appeals dismissed at the Error to C.C. P. of Cumberland (0.-Oyster v. Oyster. costs of the appellants. Judgment reversed, and is ordered that judgment be en Error to C.C.P. of Lackawana Co.-Fink v. Providence tered in favor of Napoleon K. Oyster, the defendant be Gas and Water Co. Judgment reversed and venire facias low upon case stated.

de novo awarded. Error to C.C. P. of Huntingdon Co.-Allen v. Laird. Error to C. C. P. of Lehigh Co.-Roth v. Bamer. Judg. Judgment affirmed. Isett v. (aldwell. Judgment re ment affirmed. Henninger v. Woodring. Judgment versed and now entered in favor of plaintiff against the

affirmed. defendant for the sum of $2,095.37, with interest from Error to C. C. P. of Luzerne Co.-County of Luzerne v, February, 1880.

Whittaker. Judgment reversed and venire facias de novo Appeal from the C. ('. P. of Juniata Co.-Wilson and awarded. Lehigh Coal and Navigation ('o. Y, Brown McCullough's. Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed at (two cases). Judgment reversed and venire facias de novo the costs of the appellant.

awarded. Fetterman v. Robbins. Judgment afiirmed. Error to C. C. P. of Lancaster Co.-Meuge v. Wiley

Error to C. C. P. of Montgomery ('0.-Latshaw v. HilBros. Judgment affirmed. Com'th, for use, v. Stacey / terbertel. Judgment affirmed. et al. Judgment reversed and venire facius de novo

Appeal from the 0. C. of Montgomery Co.-Buehler's. awarded. Grubb v. Grubb. Judgment reversed.

Decree reversed at costs of appellees and record remitted Error to (.C. P., No. 3, of Philadelphia Co.-(lity of

with instructions to distribute the fund in accordance Philadelphia v. Wright. Judgment reversed.

with the auditor's report. Error to C. C. P. of Schuylkill ('0.-Sunbury Fire In

Appeal from the C. C. P. of McKean ('o.-Decree resurance Co. v. Humbt. Judgment affirmed.

versed at costs of appellees, and it is now ordered that Error to C. C. P. of Tioga Co.--Onnerod v. Dearman.

the fund be distributed in accordance with the report of Judgment affirmed.

the auditor, Error to C. C. P. of York ('0.--County of York v. Capron.

Error to Q.S. of Philadelphia Co.---Robert Smith Lister Judgment reversed, and it is ordered that judgment be

v. The Com'th. Judgment affirmed, and it is ordered entered for the defendant below upon the case stated.

that the record be remitted to the Court of Quarter SesBY TRUNKEY, J.:

sions of Philadelphia county for the purpose of carrying Error to C. C. P. of Clearfield Co.-Chinclecamonche

the sentence of that court into execution. Lumber and Boom ('o. v. The ('om'th ex rel. Judgment

Error to C. C. P., No. 4, of Philadelphia ('0.-Richinond affirmed.

Building Association, Garnishee, v. Richmond Building Error to C. ('. P. of Cumberland Co.-Weast v. Derrick.

Association, to use. Judgment reversed and venire facias Judgment affirmed.

de novo awarded. Appeal from the (), C. of Cumberland 60,-Miller's.

Appeals from the C.C.P., No. 1, of Philadelphia Co.Decree reversed, exceptions to administrator's account

Wiggins'. The order of court refusing to open the judg. dismissed and said account confirmed and record remit

ment is affirmed. Reimer's. Decree affirmed and apted for further proceeding. Appellees to pay the costs

peal dismissed at the costs of the appellants. of this appeal. Error to C. ('. P. of Dauphin Co.-Pennsylvania Canal

Appeal from the 0. C. of Philadelphia Co.-Yerke's, Co. v. Dunkel. Judgment attirmed.

Decree reversed at costs of appellant and record remitted Appeal from the 0. ('. of Franklin Co.--Leidy's. De

for further proceedings. Sheetz's. Decree allirmed at cree affirmed and appeal dismissed at the costs of the

the costs of the appellant and appeal dismissed.

Error to C. C. P. of Schuylkill 00.-Quinn v, Fidelity appellants. Error to C. C. P. of Luzerne ('0.-Edwards v. Morgan.

Beneficial Society. Decree reversed and procedendo Judgment reversed.

awarded. Seitzinger v. Marsden, Judgment affirmed. Error to C.C.P. of Montgomery (to-Earnest v. Hoskins,

Error to C.C. P. af Susquehanna ('0.-Olmstead & Bailey Judgment reversed and venire facias de novo awarded

v. Gere. Judgment reversed and venire sacias de noro Error to C.C.P., No. 1, of Philadelphia Co.-Sleeper v. |

awarded. Pennsylvania Railroad Co. Judgment reversed and a

Appeal from the C. C. P. of Union Co.-Creswell's. Deprocedendo awarded. Watson, Malon & Son v, Philadel. | cree reversed at costs of appellants and it is now adjudged delphia, Judgment affirmed.

and decreed that the fund be distributed in accordance Error to C. ('. P. of Schuylkill (0.-Richards v. Mc

with the auditor's first report. Grath. Judgment reversed and venire facias de novo | BY GREEN, J.: awarded. Bensinger v. Wren. Judgment reversed. ! Appeal from the C. C. P. of Huntingdon ('0.-( 'hilcoat's. Rush Township v. Schuylkill County. Judgment re The decree of the court below is reversed and the record versed and procedendo awarded.

remitted for further proceedings, the costs of this appeal Appeal from the 0. C. of York Co.-Hunt's. Decree to be paid by the appellee. reversed, and it is now ordered and decreed that distri-| Error to C. C. P. of Juniata Co.-Leas v. Walls. Judy. bution be made as stated in the "first alternative dis- ment affirmed. tribution" reported by the auditor. Costs of appeal to | Error to C. C. P. of Lancaster Co.-Steinman v. Miller, be paid by the appellees. Record remitted for the en- | Judgment affirmed. forcement of this decree.

Error to C. C. P. of Sullivan Co.- McFarlane v. Wurff: By STERRETT, J.:

lein. Judgment reversed. Error to C. (. P. of Berks Co.-Grunson v. Healy. Error to C.C.P. of York Co.-The Northen Central RailJudgment reversed and venire facias de novo awarded. I way v. Hussen. Judgment reversed.

Pittsburgh Legal Journal.

[ocr errors]

Supreme Court, U. S.

erred in sustaining the authority of the city of

| Pittsburgh to assess and collect taxes from com• ESTABLISHED 1853.

plainant's farm lands for municipal or city purE. Y. BRECK, : : : :

poses, such exercise of the taxing power being Editor.

a violation of the rights of complainant as guarNo. 9. antied to him by Art. V of the amendments to

| the Constitution of the United States. PITTSBURGU, PA., O{ "TOBER 11, 1882.

Second. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania erred in sustaining the authority of the city of Pittsburgh to assess and collect taxes from complainant's farm lands for municipal or city

| purposes, such exercise of the taxing power KELLY V. CITY OF PITTSBURGH.

being a violation of the rights of complainant

as guarantied to him by Art. XIV, Sec. 1, of the In this country and in England, the necessities of government, the nature of the duties to be performed, and

amendments to the Constitution of the United custom and usage, have established a procedure in re States. gard to the levy and collection of taxes which differs

For plaintiff in error, Hon. Daniel Agnew and fron proceedings in courts of justice, but which is still

Albert N. Sutton, Esq. due process of law, within the meaning of the Constitution

Contra, George Shiras, Jr., Esq. What p urts of a State shall, for local purposes, be governed by a county, a town or city government, and

Opinion by MILLER, J. Filed November 21, the chua racter of the land included in each, are matters 1881. of detail within the legistative discretion.

As regards the effect of the fifth amendment When the taxes levied by a city are clearly for a proper public purpose, and are authorized by the State law,

of the Constitution, it has always been held to though some of the property assessed be farm land | be a restriction upon the powers of the federal within the city, this court cannot say that such a government and to have no reference to the exstatuite deprives the owner of his property without

ercise of such powers by the State governments. due process of law.

See Withers v. Buckley, 20 How., 84; Davidson Error to the Supreme Court of the State of

v. New Orleans, 6 Otto, 97. We need, therefore, Pennsylvania.

give this assignment of error no further considKelly is the owner of eighty acres of land eration. But this is not material, as the proviWhich, prior to the year 1867, was a part of the sion of Sec. 1, Art. XIV, of the amendments township of Collins, in the county of Allegheny, relied on in the second assignment of errors Pennsylvania. In that year the Legislature of contains a prohibition on the power of the Pennsylvania passed an act by virtue of which, State in language almost identical with that of and the subsequent proceedings under it, this the fifth amendment above referred to. That township became a part of the city of Pittsburgh. | language is that “no State shall * * * deprive The authorities of that city assessed the land in any person of life, liberty or property without question for the taxes of the year 1874 at a sum | due process of law.” The main argument of which the plaintiff asserts to be enormously be- counsel for plaintiff in error, the only one to yond its value, and which, he alleges, is almost which we can listen, is that the proceeding in destructive of his interest in the property. The regard to the taxes assessed on plaintiff's land taxes thus assessed are divisible into two classes, | does deprive him of his property without due namely : those assessed for State and county | process of law. It is not asserted that in the purposes by the county of Allegheny, within methods by which the value of plaintiff's land which Pittsburgh is situated, and those assessed is a certained for the purpose of this taxation

m e city for city purposes. Kelly took an there is any departure from the usual modes of Pred from the assessment to the board of re- / assessment. Nor that the manner of apportionVision, but the result was unsatisfactory, and ing and collecting the tax is unusual or materirought a suit in equity in the Court of Com- ally different from those in force in all commu

leals of the State to restrain the collectionnities where land is subject to taxation. In of the tax by the city authorities. There was these respects there is no charge that the method

"Swer to this bill, a replication, and a refpursued is not due process of law. Taxes have erence to

e to a master, on whose report that court not, as a general rule, in this country since its dismissed the bill, and the decree was affirmed | independence, nor in England before that time, on appeal by the Supreme Court of the State. | been collected by regular judicial proceedings Hemen assigned as error to this court :

in a court of justice. The necessities of governto The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ment, the nature of the duty to be performed,


and the customary usages of the people, have of such improvements and who use, or might established a different procedure, which, in re- use them if they choose, while the owner of this gard to that matter, is, and always has been, land reaps no such benefit. Cases are cited from due process of law. The tax in question was the higher courts of Kentucky and Iowa where assessed and the proper officers were proceeding this principle is asserted, and where those courts to collect it in this way.

have held that farm lands in a city are not subThe distinct ground on which this provision ject to the ordinary city taxes. It is no part of of the Constitution of the United States is in- our duty to inquire into the grounds on which voked is, that the eighty acres of land of the those courts have so decided. They are quesdefendant is, and always has been, used as farm tions which arise between the citizens of those land, for agricultural use only, and cannot for States and their own city authorities, and afford that reason be subjected to taxation for ordinary | no rule for construing the Constitution of the city purposes. That to do this is to deprive United States... him of his property without due process of law. We are also referred to the case of The Loan It is alleged, and probably with truth, that Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall., 662, and the the estimate of the value of this land for taxa- assertion there of the doctrine, that taxation tion is very greatly in excess of its true value. which is not for a public use is an unauthorized Whether this be true or not we cannot here in- taking of private property, though sanctioned quire. We have so often decided that we can- | by a State statute. We are unable to see that not review and correct, in this court, the errors the taxes levied on plaintifl's property were not and mistakes of the State tribunals on that sub- for a public use. Taxes for schools, for the supject that we can only refer to those decisions port of the poor, for protection against fire, for without a restatement of the argument: State water-works,-these are the specific taxes found Railroad Tax Cases, 92 U. S., 575; Kennard v. | in the list complained of. We think it will not Louisiana ex rel. Morgan, Id., 481; National be denied by any one that these are public purBank v. Kimball, 103 Id., 732; Davidson v. New poses; purposes in which the whole community Orleans, 96 Id., 97; Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, 100 have an interest, for which by common consent Id.; 491; Missouri v. Lewis, 101 Id., 22. But property owners everywhere in this country are passing from the question of the administration taxed. There are items styled city tax and city of the law of Pennsylvania by her authorities, buildings, which, in the absence of any explathe argument is that the law itself is in conflict nation, we must suppose to be for the good govwith the Constitution in the matter already ernment of the city, and for the construction of mentioned. It is not denied that the Legisla- | such buildings as are necessary for municipal ture could rightfully enlarge the boundary of purposes. Surely these are all public purposes; the city of Pittsburgh so as to include the de- and the money so to be raised is for public use. fendant's land. If this power were denied, we No item of the tax assessed against plaintiff is are unable to see how such denial could be sus-pointed out as intended for any other than a tained. What portion of a State shall be within public use. It may be true that plaintiff does the limits of a city and governed by its authori- not receive the same amount of benefit from ties and its laws has always been considered to some of these taxes, or from any of them, as do be a proper subject of legislation. How thickly citizens living in the heart of the city. It probor how sparsely the territory must be settled so ably is true, from the evidence found in this organized into a city, must be one of the matters record, that his tax bears a very unjust relation within the discretion of the legislative body. | to the benefits received as compared with its Whether its territory shall be governed for local amount. But who can undertake to adjust with purposes by a county, city or township organi- | precise accuracy the amount which each indization, is one of the most usual and ordinary | vidual in an organized civil community shall subjects of State legislation. It is urged, how- contribute to sustain the organization ? Or to ever, with much force, that though land of this insure in this respect absolute equality of burcharacter,-land which its owner has not laid den, and fairness in its distribution among those out into town lots, but which he insists on using who must bear it. as agricultural land, through which no streets We cannot say judicially that Mr. Kelly reare run or used,-cannot be, even by the Legis-ceived no benefit from the city organization. lature, subjected to the taxes of a city, the water These streets, if they do not penetrate his farm, tax, the gas tax, the street tax, and others of lead to it. The water-works will probably similar character. The reason for this is said reach him some day, and may be near enough to be that such taxes are for the benefit of those to him now to serve him on some occasion. in a city who own property within the limits | The schools may receive his children, and in

« AnteriorContinuar »