Breckwoldt v. Morris
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 102, July T., 1891, by plaintiff, Margaret Breckwoldt, from judgment of C. P. Warren Co., for defendants, Clinton S. Morris and W. C. Beardsley, n. o. v. Trespass for seizing and removing personal property.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 102, July T., 1891, by plaintiff, Margaret Breckwoldt, from judgment of C. P. Warren Co., for defendants, Clinton S. Morris and W. C. Beardsley, n. o. v. Trespass for seizing and removing personal property. On trial before Noyes, P. J., the plaintiff presented the following point: , “That the judgment given in evidence of Morris & Neill v. J. A. Breckwoldt and Margaret Breckwoldt, is void as to said Margaret Breckwoldt, the wife of said J. A. Breckwoldt, and that the sale of her property under and by virtue of it is a nullity and conferred no title on the purchaser.” Answer. “…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
We think the learned judge below was right in entering judgment upon the reserved points in favor of the defendants. *297There was nothing upon the record of the justice of the peace to show that the plaintiff was a married woman at the time the judgment against her was rendered. She did not appeal from that judgment, and, after the time limited for an appeal, the plaintiff in that suit issued an execution against the defendant (the plaintiff in this suit), and under it her personal property was levied upon and sold. "Under these circumstances, the judgment of the justice, and the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Drabant v. CureSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
- Hamay v. County of WashingtonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
- Cessna v. ClouseSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1913