Hoedt v. Hoedt
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 230, Oct. T., 1914, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Schuylkill Co., No. 131, July T., 1909; discharging rule to. vacate execution as to costs in case of Helen M. Hoedt v. Emil Hoedt. Buie to vacate execution as to costs imposed on wife on the dismissal of her libel for divorce. Before Brumm, J. Error assigned was order discharging rule. cited: Walker v. Reamy, 36 Pa. 410; Diver v. Diver, 66 Pa. 106.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Kephart, J.,
Costs are of statutory origin .and he who seeks to recover them must point out the statute giving them: Stewart et al. v. Baldwin, 1 Penrose & Watts, 461; Shaw v. Irwin, 25 Pa. 347. Except where specifically provided by statute neither husband nor wife can sue the other because of the common-law disabilities of unity of persons preventing: Marstellar v. Marstellar, 93 Pa. 350; Gracie’s Est., 158 Pa. 521. Where the wife is authorized to sue the husband in divorce, and she fails in her suit, does this disability preclude the husband from an award of costs or prevent his…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Marsteller v. MarstellerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1880
- Gracie's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Shaw v. IrwinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1855
3Cited by6 opinions
- Novy v. NovySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
- Weyant v. General Refractories Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
- Cooper's EstatePennsylvania Orphans' Court, Philadelphia County · 1929
- Costs in Liquor Control Board CasesPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas · 1939
- Mitchell v. Christie, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1941
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.