Hallowell v. Horter
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to tbe District Court of Philadelphia. This was a feigned issue under the Sheriff’s Interpleader Act of the 10th April 1848, wherein Mary Jane Horter was plaintiff, and M. L. Hallowell & Co. defendants, to determine whether a stock of dry goods levied on by the sheriff, under an execution against Washington Horter, the plaintiff’s husband, and claimed by her, were the property of the said Mary Jane Horter.
Read the full summary
Error to tbe District Court of Philadelphia. This was a feigned issue under the Sheriff’s Interpleader Act of the 10th April 1848, wherein Mary Jane Horter was plaintiff, and M. L. Hallowell & Co. defendants, to determine whether a stock of dry goods levied on by the sheriff, under an execution against Washington Horter, the plaintiff’s husband, and claimed by her, were the property of the said Mary Jane Horter. In 1854, Washington Horter failed in business, and became utterly insolvent, being indebted, among numerous other creditors, to M. L. Hallowell & Co., the defendants, in the sum of…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Woodward, J.
A merchant breaks down one year deeply indebted — the next year he is in full blast again, buying and selling goods in his wife’s name, which were purchased under endorsements and guarantees by his father — the next year his father loans his wife $1000, which probably went into the business — though that was not proved — and the next year a judgment-creditor of the husband levies the goods then on hand in execution of his judgment — does the fact that $1000 was loaned to the wife vest in her such a separate property in the goods as enables…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Orr & Lindsley v. BornsteinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
- Yocum's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1913