Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 03.pdf/522

 %t

<&mn

Published Monthly, at $3.00 per annum.

Bag. Single numbers, 50 cents.

Communications in regard to the contents of the Magazine should be addressed to the Editor, Horace W. Fuller, 15^ Beacon Street, Boston, Mass. The Editor will be glad to receive contributions of articles of moderate length upon subjects of interest to the profession; also anything in the way of legal antiquities or curiosities, facetia, anecdotes, etc. THE GREEN BAG. A N Indiana correspondent sends in the fol lowing : — Editor of the " Green Bag " : The writer was one of a committee on examina tion of an applicant for admission to the bar of this (Adams) county a short time ago, and the answers of the applicant may be "useless and entertaining" to some of the readers of the "Green Bag." I can assure you they were useless to the applicant for admission to the bar, for he failed to pass muster The following are a few of the questions and answers which I now recollect : — Question. What is common law? Answer. Common law is the practice before a justice of the peace. Ques. What is chancery practice? Ans. Practice before a jury. Ques. Who is the master of chancery? Ans. The foreman of the jury. Ques. When is a plea in abatement used? Ans. When you get in a tight place before the jury. Ques. What is a demurrer? Ans. An objection. The committee thought, as the applicant had an swered the last question so nearly correct, they had best not proceed any further with the examination. The applicant was instructed, however, to brush up a little in medical jurisprudence, and he would no doubt be able to pass an examination not later than 1900. J- F. M. The following correction comes from a Penn sylvania subscriber : — Butler, Pa. To the Editor of the " Green Bai; " : Dear Sir, — In the September, 1891, number of the "Green Bag," in an article entitled " Looked upon with Veneration," is quoted a supposed de63

cision of Justice Mitchell of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. The author has evidently been misled; and know ing that the " Green Bag" would not intentionally mislead its readers, I will give my reasons for calling it "a supposed decision." The words quoted were used by Judge John I. Mitchell of Tioga County in a recent decision. Jus tice James T. Mitchell of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has never written a decision involving the question of the seal. The similarity in the names of Justice Mitchell and Judge Mitchell is, doubtless, what has given rise to the error. The latest deliver ance of our Supreme Court is found in Hacker's Appeal, 121 Pa. St. 202. Decided October 1, 1888. Mr. Justice Clark in his Opinion says " A seal is not necessarily of any particular form or fig ure; when not of wax, it is usually made in the form of a scroll, but the letters ' L S.' or the word ' Seal,' enclosed in brackets, or in some other design, are in frequent use. It may, however, consist of the out line without any enclosure; it may have a dark ground or a light one; it may be in the form of a cir cle, an ellipse, or a scroll, or it may be irregular in form; it may be a simple dash or flourish of the pen. Long v. Ramsey, 1 S. & R. 72. Its precise form cannot be defined; that, in each case, will depend wholly upon the taste or fancy of the person who makes it. . . . Whether the instrument is under seal or not, is a question to be determined by the court upon inspection; and whether or not any mark or impres sion shall be held to be a seal, depends wholly upon the intention of the party executing the instrument, as exhibited on the face of the paper itself." The signature to the instrument in question in this case was as follows : " In witness thereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal," and to this was ap pended the signature in the form following : " Ellen Wain —," no flourish of the pen nor anything except the " — " following the name, which was from one sixteenth to one eighth of an inch in length. The opinion of Judge John I. Mitchell was error. If his opinion, or any such one, should be con firmed by our Supreme Court, it would invalidate the majority of title-papers that have been executed in this State during the last five years at least. Such a decision would be mischievous and against custom, which, with the decisions of our Supreme Court, is the only law Pennsylvania has on this subject. J. W. Hutchison