Roll v. Davison
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 102, Oct. T., 1894, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny County, March T., 1892, No. 314, for defendant non obstante veredicto. Appeal from alderman.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 102, Oct. T., 1894, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny County, March T., 1892, No. 314, for defendant non obstante veredicto. Appeal from alderman. Before Stowe, P. J.: The jury returned the following special verdict: “ Verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $153.04, subject to the opinion of the court on the question of law reserved, to wit: whether the judgment against the husband of defendant offered in evidence is a bar to plaintiff’s right to recover in this action.” The following opinion was fifed by Stowe, P. J.: “ On April 22, 1891, an action was brought by…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion bt
Me. Justice Mitchell,
The husband is primarily liable for necessaries although they *394were contracted for by tbe wife on the credit of her own separate estate, Berger v. Clark, 79 Pa. 340, and it was proper therefore to join him with her in the first action. The reasons for the reversal as to the wife by the Court of Common Pleas No. 2 do not appear, but as it was upon depositions on a certiorari it was clearly erroneous. But even if regular it would not prevent a second action. There was no judgment for the wife on the merits of the case, which would be conclusive.
Suit against the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Berger v. ClarkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1875
3Cited by1 opinion
- Detwiler v. BowersSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1899