Toddes v. Hafer
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 24, March T., 1903, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Adams Co., Aug. T., 1900, No. 200, on verdict for defendant in case of Mary Toddes v. F. K. Hafer. Sheriff’s interpleader to determine ownership of goods claimed by plaintiff, but taken in execution as the goods of her husband.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 24, March T., 1903, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Adams Co., Aug. T., 1900, No. 200, on verdict for defendant in case of Mary Toddes v. F. K. Hafer. Sheriff’s interpleader to determine ownership of goods claimed by plaintiff, but taken in execution as the goods of her husband. Before Swope, P. J. At the trial it was alleged in the testimony of plaintiff and her husband that the latter was insolvent and that he conducted a business of hacking over the Gettysburg battlefield, and in trading in horses on the money furnished solely by his wife from her own earnings. When J.…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The first assignment of error is dismissed for the reason that it does not quote the testimony given in response to the question as required by rule 16.
There is no merit in the second assignment. In view of the testimony of the plaintiff and her husband as to the manner of doing business and as to the ownership of the money earned by- him in the hacking and horse trading business, it was perfectly competent for the defendant to show that the business was conducted wholly or in part through a bank account kept in his name.
The third and fourth assignments must be construed in the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Commonwealth v. Van HornSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Commonwealth ex rel. Arrott Steam Power Mills Co. v. ArnoldSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
- Connell v. O'NeilSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Taylor v. PrestonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1875
- Commonwealth v. FitzpatrickSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
3Cited by1 opinion
- Broxie v. Household Finance Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1974