Nissley v. Brubaker
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 197, Jan. T., 1899, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Lancaster Co., Nov. T., 1894, No. 7, on verdict for defendant. Assumpsit for money had and received.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 197, Jan. T., 1899, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Lancaster Co., Nov. T., 1894, No. 7, on verdict for defendant. Assumpsit for money had and received. Before Livingston, P. J. At the trial plaintiff offered to prove by Samuel B. Nissley that “ before six years had expired from the passage of the act of 1887, he had an interview with Isaac Brubaker, in the presence of Rebecca Nissley’s husband, H. B. Nissley; that, in that interview, he admitted that he was with his daughter on or about April 1,1873, when she passed title for the property near Landisville, this county, to…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb. Justice Gbeen,
We are very clear that the Act of June 3, 1887, P. L. 332, which conferred upon married women the right to sue and he sued in the same manner as if they were single, operated as a repeal of the proviso in the limitation act of March 27, 1713, which prevents the statute of limitations from running against married women until they become discovert. We consider this conclusion inevitable because a right to sue is fundamentally inconsistent with a disability to sue, and by consequence removes the disability. It follows, therefore, in the present case, that a right of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Estate of HicksSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
3Cited by2 opinions
- Peterson v. Pittsburg Silver Peak Gold Mining Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1914
- Catina v. MareeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1979