Dennison v. Nigh
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the common pleas of Franklin county. This was a scire facias upon a judgment on a foreign attachment, by James Dennison against Samuel Nigh, garnishee of John Lutshaw, in which the question arose, whether a bequest to Mary, the wife of John Lutshaw, was the subject of a foreign attachment at the suit of his creditor.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the common pleas of Franklin county. This was a scire facias upon a judgment on a foreign attachment, by James Dennison against Samuel Nigh, garnishee of John Lutshaw, in which the question arose, whether a bequest to Mary, the wife of John Lutshaw, was the subject of a foreign attachment at the suit of his creditor. That part of the will of Andrew Dennison, the father of Mrs Lutshaw, which made the bequest, was this : “ I will and allow, that-the residue of my estate be equally divided between my sons John, Andrew, William, James, Samuel and Robert, and my daughters Betsey…
1Per curiam
The decision of this case depends not on the abstract question whether a legacy may be attached, but on the nature of the interest in another respect. It is enough for the defence of the garnishee, that the ownership is not in the defendant, but in his wife; the interest bequeathed to her being a portion of her father’s estate when turned into money. Thought marriage is in effect a gift of the wife’s personal estate in possession, it is said to be but a conditional gift of her chattels in action; such as debts, contingehrinterests,’ money owing her oil account of intestacy, or orphan’s…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Timbers v. KatzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1843
- Grebill's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1878
- Mellinger's Administrator v. Bausman's TrusteeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1863
- Kutz's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1861
- Wingate v. ParsonsCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1871
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.