Seibert v. M'Henry
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
WE.IT of error to the common pleas of Luzerne county. George M’Henry and Lucinda, his wife, against Nicholas Seibert. This was an action of replevin for a cow.
Read the full summary
WE.IT of error to the common pleas of Luzerne county. George M’Henry and Lucinda, his wife, against Nicholas Seibert. This was an action of replevin for a cow. The proof offered by the plaintiffs was, that the-cow had belonged to Charles Holloway, the father of Lucinda M’Henry, and was sold as his property, and purchased by his daughter, before her marriage to the plaintiff, but remained in the possession of the father, until after her marriage, and until she was taken by the defendant. The defendant pleaded property in himself. When the plaintiffs offered the evidence of their right to…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Kennedy, J.
The question, which arises here is, whether a feme sole being the owner, and in either the actual or constructive possession of personal property at the time of her marriage, can, for an unlawful taking thereof, after the marriage, by the defend*302ant, be joined with her husband in an action of replevin for the recovery of it. It has been very ingeniously argued and certainly not without a great deal of plausibility by the counsel for the defendants in error, who were the plaintiffs below, that this question is not necessarily presented by the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Clemson v. DavidsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1813
- Waterman v. RobinsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
3Cited by5 opinions
- Hutchinson v. City of ParkersburgWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1884
- Constantine v. FosterIllinois Supreme Court · 1870
- Blanchard v. BloodNew York Supreme Court · 1848
- Fairchild v. ChaustelleuxSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1839
- Apple Inc. v. Allan & Associates LimitedDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2020