Bucher v. Ream
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
May 8d 1872. Before Thompson, C. J., Read, Agnew, Sharswood and Williams, JJ. Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster county: No. 48, to May Term 1871. This was an issue under the Sheriff’s Interpleader Act, framed September 1st 1869, between Polly Bucher, plaintiff and claimant, and Cyrus Ream, assignee of Jacob Bucher, defendant, to try, the ownership of certain goods levied on by the defendant, under his execution, on a judgment for $353.64, issued to August Term…
Read the full summary
May 8d 1872. Before Thompson, C. J., Read, Agnew, Sharswood and Williams, JJ. Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster county: No. 48, to May Term 1871. This was an issue under the Sheriff’s Interpleader Act, framed September 1st 1869, between Polly Bucher, plaintiff and claimant, and Cyrus Ream, assignee of Jacob Bucher, defendant, to try, the ownership of certain goods levied on by the defendant, under his execution, on a judgment for $353.64, issued to August Term 1869, against Jesse Bucher, husband of Polly Bucher. The goods were “ two horses, five cows, six head of young cattle,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered,
by Williams, J.
This case was well tried in the court below. The evidence complained of was properly received. It tended to show that the property in controversy belonged to the husband and not to the wife. And the court rightfully refused to submit the question of the wife’s ownership to the jury. There was no sufficient evidence that any portion of the property levied on was paid for with the funds, or consisted of the products, of her separate estate. On the contrary the evidence showed that the wife had no separate property or estate left, after the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Standen v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
- Stuive v. Pere Marquette Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1945
- Orr & Lindsley v. BornsteinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889