131 Pa. 189 | Pa. | 1890
Opinion,
The first assignment of error not being according to rule, neither the paper itself, nor the evidence on which it was admitted as a copy, being set out, we must treat it as abandoned.
The offers in the second and third assignments were cer
The offer in the second assignment was also relevant and competent on the question of the abandonment of plaintiffs’ interest in the bonds. That an executor may abandon property pledged, or subject to assessment, if there is no value over the debt or the assessment to be preserved for the estate, was ruled by Chief Justice Shaw in Ripley v. Sampson, 10 Pick. 373. Such result or intention will not be lighty inferred, but the offer was of testimony tending to support it, and should have been received.
The fourth, fifth, and sixth assignments are not sustained. Merely leaving a pledge in the hands of the pledgee with no offer to redeem, but also with no demand by the creditor for payment, is not of itself enough to justify submitting the question of abandonment to a jury. Nor is the lapse of time
Judgment reversed, and venire de novo awarded.