Silveus's Executors v. Porter
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Greene county: Of October and November Term 1873, No. 188. This was an action of trespass d. b. a., brought by William A. Porter and Elizabeth his wife, for her use, against Henry B. Silveus; the defendant having died, A. A. Purman and D. M. Silveus, his executors, were substituted. The action was against the defendant as sheriff, for selling, under an execution against Porter the husband, goods which Mrs. Porter alleged belonged to her.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Greene county: Of October and November Term 1873, No. 188. This was an action of trespass d. b. a., brought by William A. Porter and Elizabeth his wife, for her use, against Henry B. Silveus; the defendant having died, A. A. Purman and D. M. Silveus, his executors, were substituted. The action was against the defendant as sheriff, for selling, under an execution against Porter the husband, goods which Mrs. Porter alleged belonged to her. The case was tried September 19th 1873, before Campbell, P. J. Mrs. Porter was the owner of a hotel called the “ Greene…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered, January 5th 1874, by
Mercur, J. —
Since the Act of 11th of April 1848, it has been settled by numerous decisions of this court that the proceeds of the wife’s separate property cannot be seized for the husband’s debt: *451Manderbach v. Mock, 5 Casey 48; Rush v. Voight, 5 P. F. Smith 437; Brown v. Pendleton et al., 10 Id. 419; Musser v. Gardner, 16 Id. 242. If her property be real estate, the fact that her husband’s labor assisted in creating the products derived therefrom, does not make them liable for his debt: Rush v. Voight, supra.
Property purchased by a…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Herster v. HersterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
- Phillips v. HallSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
- Brink v. BradySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909