Fairchild v. Chaustelleux
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the common pleas of Bradford county. Caesar Laurent Conte De Chaustelleux and Louisa Zephine De Damas, his wife, against Abel Fairchild and Reuben White. This was an action of replevin for four hundred white pine saw logs, which the plaintiffs alleged the defendants had taken from' their close, and carried away. The objection to the action was, that the husband and wife had joined in an action to recover the personal effects of the husband.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the common pleas of Bradford county. Caesar Laurent Conte De Chaustelleux and Louisa Zephine De Damas, his wife, against Abel Fairchild and Reuben White. This was an action of replevin for four hundred white pine saw logs, which the plaintiffs alleged the defendants had taken from' their close, and carried away. The objection to the action was, that the husband and wife had joined in an action to recover the personal effects of the husband. In answer to this, the plaintiffs relied upon the fact, that the logs had been cut from the joint estate of the husband and wife. The court below…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Rogers, J.
The only point on which the plaintiff in error replies, is raised on the charge of the court, that husband and wife can sustain an action of replevin for timber, cut and carried away from property belonging to them during the coverture. It is a principle of law, stated by Chitty in his treatise on Civil Pleading, and since recognised in Seibert v. M’Henry, 6 Watts 301, that when a feme covert has no interest whatever in the subject matter of the action, and consequently ought not to be made a party, and she sues either with or without her…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Seibert v. M'HenrySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1837
3Cited by1 opinion
- Smith v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of Vermont · 1887