Ulrich v. Hower

Citations

• 156 Pa. 414
• 27 A. 243
• 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1366

Syllabus

<p>Equitable assignment — Claim for wages — Act of May 10, 1881.</p> <p>It is not entirely clear whether an assignment to a creditor by a debtor of a claim for money due to the latter by a third person for wages, is within the act of May 10,1881, P. L. 17, but whether it is or not, the objection that the assignment was not in writing can only be raised by the acceptor for whose benefit the statute was passed.</p> <p>Whether such a verbal assignment is revocable or not, depends largely upon the circumstances, and in any event the fact of revocation is for the jury.</p> <p>Master and servant — ■Discharge of servant — Drunkenness.</p> <p>A master is justified in discharging a servant for drunkenness while off duty, if his drunkenness while off duty rendered him incapable of the faithful and efficient performance of his work while on duty.</p> <p>A single instance of reckless driving or using a team for other people’s work is sufficient to justify a master in discharging his driver, if the master has been thereby injured. It is usually a question of fact for the jury.</p> <p>Execution — Attachment—Practice, C. P. .</p> <p>On March 8, 1892, a verdict was entered in favor of plaintiff. On Aug. 18, 1892, the money was attached in defendant’s hands by a creditor of plaintiff, with notice to plaintiff. On Aug. 22, 1892, the jury fee was paid judgment entered on the verdict, and a fi. fa. issued. On Aug. 26. 1892, a rule was granted to set aside the fi. fa. Subsequently the attachment was discontinued. The court then discharged the rule to set aside the li. fa. Held, that the fi. fa. should have been set aside.</p>