Blum v. Ross
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
No. 72 January Term 1886, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 242 May Term 1885, C. P. In the court below the proceeding was a Feigned Issue directed to try the right of Daniel Blum, the claimant, to certain property which had been levied upon under an execution against Joseph C. Blum issued upon a judgment in favor of Lewis P. Ross.
Read the full summary
No. 72 January Term 1886, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 242 May Term 1885, C. P. In the court below the proceeding was a Feigned Issue directed to try the right of Daniel Blum, the claimant, to certain property which had been levied upon under an execution against Joseph C. Blum issued upon a judgment in favor of Lewis P. Ross. Joseph C. Blum lived in Towanda, Pa., and in December, 1881, he conveyed to his wife Ida E. Blum, a house and lot in that place and soon afterwards removed to Akron, Ohio, with a stock of boots and shoes and there began business. He there became indebted to insolvency for…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion,
Mr. Justice Gordon :
Were we to reverse the judgment of the court below we must needs make bad work with the law heretofore governing the marital relation, for not only, in that event, would we have to allow the wife to. acquire and hold property on her personal credit, but also to have and own, even as against creditors, the labor and earnings of her husband. A very brief statement of the facts of this case will, we think, demonstrate that the action of the Common Pleas was correct, and that the evidence adduced by the plaintiff was not of such a character as required its submission…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Hinton v. SaulWyoming Supreme Court · 1927
- Bollinger v. Gallagher, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, York County1891
- Backer v. MeyerU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Arkansas · 1890