Tate v. Carney
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
July Term, 1888, No. 6, E. D., Error to- the Common Pleas of Bed-ford County to review a judgment on a verdict for the defendants in an action of ejectment, November Term, 1886, No. 69. The plaintiff was the purchaser of the land in question at sheriff’s sale on execution of a judgment against Samuel Carney, the husband of Susan Carney. The facts are stated in the opinion.
Read the full summary
July Term, 1888, No. 6, E. D., Error to- the Common Pleas of Bed-ford County to review a judgment on a verdict for the defendants in an action of ejectment, November Term, 1886, No. 69. The plaintiff was the purchaser of the land in question at sheriff’s sale on execution of a judgment against Samuel Carney, the husband of Susan Carney. The facts are stated in the opinion. The assignments of error specified the action in the court below : (1) In refusing to affirm plaintiff’s fifth point, which was as follows: “It is incumbent and devolves upon defendants to prove affirmatively that Susan…
1Opinion of the Court
Per 0Uriah:
The plaintiff in error has no just ground of complaint, either as to the rulings of the court or the verdict of the jury. The farm in question was purchased by Susan Carney, wife of Samuel Carney, in 1850. A considerable amount of the purchase money was paid in cash out of her separate estate. The judgment notes given for the balance were collected by executions levied from time to time upon her property. It does not appear that her husband had any money to pay with; on the contrary he was insolvent. That he lived with his wife on the farm is not to the purpose. He was merely her…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Rush v. VoughtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1867
3Cited by3 opinions
- McCue v. BarnettLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1914
- Murphy v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1914
- Wolf v. ThomasLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1916