Berger v. Clark
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 2, of Allegheny county: Of October and November Term 1875, No. 190. This was an action of assumpsit, commenced September 22d 1874, by PI. H. Clark and Michael Berger and Maria Berger, his wife.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 2, of Allegheny county: Of October and November Term 1875, No. 190. This was an action of assumpsit, commenced September 22d 1874, by PI. H. Clark and Michael Berger and Maria Berger, his wife. The declaration was :— “Michael Berger and Maria Berger, his wife, of said county, were summoned to answer H. H. Clark, M. D., of a plea of trespass on the case, whereupon the said plaintiff, by John Barton, his attorney, complains, for that whereas the defendants on the 17th day of September, in the year of our Lord 1874, * * * were indebted to the said…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Agnew
It has been the endeavor of this court so to construe the Married Woman’s Act of 11th April 1848, as to advance its true purpose, and not to make her condition less favorable, by an interpretation that endangers her real interests. A review of the judicial decisions upon the act, by Justice Woodward, may be found in the case of Pettit v. Fetz, Ex’r, 9 Casey 120. The case of Mahon v. Gormley, 12 Harris 80, states the object of the act very clearly. Lewis, J., remarks that it was intended for their protection, not for their injury, and must receive such a construction as shall promote that…
2Cited by16 opinions
- Clothier v. WolffSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1917
- Dublino v. Natale Et Ux.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
- McCreery v. ScullySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1917
- Estate of Cora A. McGinnisSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
- Boggs and Buhl v. KamonsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.