Lippincott & Wife v. Hopkins
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia: No. 434, to January Term 1867. This was a suit before an alderman, by John S. Hopkins against Wallace Lippincott and Mary Ann his wife. A judgment for $49.85 was obtained, and the plaintiff in error appealed. That appeal was tried in the Common Pleas, and a verdict had for the plaintiff below. The narr. contained numerous counts.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia: No. 434, to January Term 1867. This was a suit before an alderman, by John S. Hopkins against Wallace Lippincott and Mary Ann his wife. A judgment for $49.85 was obtained, and the plaintiff in error appealed. That appeal was tried in the Common Pleas, and a verdict had for the plaintiff below. The narr. contained numerous counts. Those which were sustained by the court below, on demurrer, and upon which judgment was entered, charged in substance, that on the 6th day of September 1862, the said Mary Ann Lippincott, being a married woman, then…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
A&new, J.
There is no inconsistency between the counts of the declaration. The averment that Mrs. Lippincott was authorized to become indebted to the plaintiff for the work and material *331furnished by him is not -inconsistent with the express averment that she herself requested ■ the work to be done, and became indebted for it on account of its being necessary for her separate estate. It is simply an averment ex majore cautela to show the husband’s express assent to the act of his wife, but the act is clearly and expressly averred to be hers.
The husband…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Shryock v. BuckmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888
- Sellers v. HeinbaughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1887