
    Ebert, Appellant, v. Kaufmann.
    • Appeals — Rule for penalty under act of May 19, 1897.
    On an appeal from a judgment on a verdict for defendant in a sheriff’s interpleader, the penalty under the Act of May 19, 1897, P. L. 67, will be imposed, where it appears that the appellant filed no assignments of error, served no paper-book, suffered a non pros, and made no answer to the petition for the rule for penalty, which averred that the appellant when he bought the stock of goods in controversy made no request for a list of creditors of the vendor, and that he knew of the appellee’s judgment.
    Appeal, No. 144, October Term, 1907.
    Petition for rule for penalty.
    The petition was as follows :
    That the above action was a sheriff’s interpleader to determine the title to the stock and fixtures of a bakery purchased by Carl Ebert from his brother, Louis Ebert, August 1, 1905; that upon the trial of the case claimant admitted that he did not ask his brother for a list of the names and residences of his creditors, and that he knew of the Kaufmann judgment, and that his brother said he would pay Kau f mann ; that Louis Ebert admitted on cross-examination that his brother did not ask for a list of creditors.
    That claimant made a motion for a new trial, and no argument being made in support thereof the rule was discharged June 18, 1907 ; that after taking the appeal appellant took no further proceedings in the matter, filed no assignments of error, served no paper-book and, when the case was called on October 7, 1907, suffered the appeal to be non. prossed.
    Your petitioner therefore prays your honorable court to enter a rule on appellant to show cause why an attorney’s fee of $25.00 and damages at the rate of six per cent per annum in addition to legal interest should not be awarded to appellee as further coRs, as provided in section 21 of the Act of assembly of May 19, 1897, P. L. 67.
    October 21, 1907:
   Per Curiam,

Rule absolute.  