Kunselman v. Stine
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 11, Jan. T., 1898, by defendant, from orders of C. P. Northumberland Co., Sept. T., 1894, No. 365, discharging certain rules. Rule to show cause why the levy on a testatum fi. fa. to Schuylkill county should not be restricted to certain land in Schuylkill county. Rule to show cause why judgment should not be stricken from the record for want of jurisdiction. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. Errors assigned were orders discharging rules.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb. Justice Fell,
The plaintiff sued to recover the arrears of annual interest due upon her share of the real estate of which her husband died *464seized. Her right to recover was settled by the decision in Kunselman v. Stine, 183 Pa. 1, in which it was held that her interest in the real estate of her husband was that of a tenant for life, and that it was not changed by the fact that in partition proceedings it was charged upon all the land of the husband passing to a purchaser. Her action was brought in Northumberland county, and the land is situate in Schuylkill county. Upon the return…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Gourley v. KinleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1870
- Gaul v. LauerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1861
- Kunselman v. StineSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- Diefenderfer v. EshlemanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886
3Cited by3 opinions
- Hahn's EstatePennsylvania Orphans' Court, Lehigh County · 1941
- Hershey v. DeloneSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
- Witmer v. Warfel, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lancaster County1902