Pier v. Siegel
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas No. 1 of Allegheny county: Of October and November Term, 1884, No. 109. Ejectment, by Rufus W. Pier and Henry F. Dannals against Frank Siegel and Catharine Siegel, his wife, for a house and lot of ground situate on Fourteenth street in the city of Pittsburgh. Plea, not guilty.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas No. 1 of Allegheny county: Of October and November Term, 1884, No. 109. Ejectment, by Rufus W. Pier and Henry F. Dannals against Frank Siegel and Catharine Siegel, his wife, for a house and lot of ground situate on Fourteenth street in the city of Pittsburgh. Plea, not guilty. On the trial, before Collier, J., the plaintiffs showed title as purchasers of the premises in question at a sheriff’s sale, in 1883, under a judgment recovered by plaintiffs against Frank Siegel June 14th, 1881, under which said premises were levied upon in execution and sold as the…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Paxson
The question of the good faith of this transaction has been settled by the verdict of the jury. We have only to consider its legal aspect.
The facts are not disputed. Catherine Siegel, one of the defendants below, is a married woman; has never been a feme sole trader, and has not any separate estate. She bought the house and lot which is the subject of this controversy; took the deed in her own name, and paid for it wholly with money borrowed from a friend. Subsequently she joined with Frank Siegel, her husband, in giving a bond and mortgage upon the house for the borrowed money. The property…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Jones v. JonesOhio Supreme Court · 1832
3Cited by2 opinions
- State v. KamudaSupreme Court of Vermont · 1925
- Orr & Lindsley v. BornsteinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889