McCoy v. Niblick
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 315, Jan. T., 1909, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Bucks Co., Sept. T., 1906, No. 55, on verdict for defendant in case of Mary J. McCoy v. Samuel C. Niblick and William M. McCormick. Ejectment for land in Falls township.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 315, Jan. T., 1909, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Bucks Co., Sept. T., 1906, No. 55, on verdict for defendant in case of Mary J. McCoy v. Samuel C. Niblick and William M. McCormick. Ejectment for land in Falls township. Before Stout, P. J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court and also in the previous report of the case in 221 Pa. 123. The plaintiff presented among others these points: 2. If the jury find that the defendant entered into the possession of plaintiff’s lands, described in the writ, without any legal conveyance thereof to him and without the…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Brown,
On the first trial of this case a verdict was directed for the plaintiff on the ground that her contract for the sale of her farm, under which defendant took possession, was void because she was a married woman when she signed it and her husband had not joined in it. The judgment on the verdict was reversed, as her contract was not void *344under the Act of June 8, 1893, P. L. 344, and, though not specifically enforcible by reason of the failure of the husband to join in it, it was held that a conditional verdict ought to have been directed, securing to McCormick, the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- McCoy v. NiblickSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
3Cited by3 opinions
- Hollander v. AbramsNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1926
- Irvin v. BlackaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
- Ritter v. Relly, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Northampton County1923