Lippincott v. Leeds
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the District Court of Philadelphia: Of January Term 1873. No. 284. This was an action of assumpsit, brought November 17th 1869, by Joseph Leeds against Wallace Lippincott and Mary Ann Lippincott his wife. The declaration was: In the first count — that plaintiff, at the request of “ defendants,” furnished materials and repaired two houses, and the “ defendants ” promised to pay him for his services and the materials.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court of Philadelphia: Of January Term 1873. No. 284. This was an action of assumpsit, brought November 17th 1869, by Joseph Leeds against Wallace Lippincott and Mary Ann Lippincott his wife. The declaration was: In the first count — that plaintiff, at the request of “ defendants,” furnished materials and repaired two houses, and the “ defendants ” promised to pay him for his services and the materials. In the second conut — that the plaintiff, at the request of the defendant, Mary Ann Lippincott, furnished materials and repaired two houses “of the defendant, Mary Ann…
1Opinion of the Court
Judgment was entered in the Supreme Court,
2Per curiam
It has been held in several cases that a married woman is liable for repairs to her separate estate, made at her request, and necessary for its preservation and enjoyment. The last case is Lippincott & Wife v. Hopkins, 7 P. F. Smith 328, and the point is there directly ruled. There is no express statutory provision covering the case; but this liability is the necessary result of the rights of the wife and disabilities of the husband, conferred by the Act of 11th April 1848. Yain would be its enactment, that the property of a married woman shall be…
3Cited by2 opinions
- Shryock v. BuckmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888
- Sellers v. HeinbaughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1887