Rose v. Latshaw
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Bedford county: Of May Term 1879, No. 85. This was a case stated for the opinion of the court, w’herein Aaron Rose and Catharine, his wife, for the use of said wife, were plaintiffs, and Abram Latshaw and others defendants.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Bedford county: Of May Term 1879, No. 85. This was a case stated for the opinion of the court, w’herein Aaron Rose and Catharine, his wife, for the use of said wife, were plaintiffs, and Abram Latshaw and others defendants. The facts as stated were these: Aaron Rose being indebted to Catharine Rose, his wife, gave her his judgment exemption note dated the — day of April 1877, for the sum of $55.32, with interest from April 6th 1877, upon which judgment was entered to No. 309 of April Term 1877, without the intervention of a trustee. A fi. fa. issued…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Trunkey
When it was judicially declared that a judgment, given by a husband to his wife to secure her separate estate, is not void in law or equity, because of the legal unity of the parties, a principle was settled which entitles the plaintiffs to recover. In Williams’s Appeal, 11 Wright 307, the only question for adjudication, was the validity of a judgment upon a bond confessed by virtue of a warrant of attorney, in favor of Hannah Moore against her husband ; and in Shade v. Shade, 5 Clark P. L. J. Rep. 493, a like question was alone presented. The latter was first decided, and Pearson, P. J., in…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Freiler v. KearSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
- Kincade v. CunninghamSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888
- Harwood v. HarwoodSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
- Kincade v. CunninghamSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888
- York v. Scranton Lackawanna Trust Co., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County1932