Hauberger v. Root
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from tbe Common Pleas of Montgomery county. March 24. The question argued here.was, whether the court was right in directing the condition to be attached to the plaintiffs’ verdict. On the trial, it appeared that Hauberger, who with his wife were the plaintiffs, had made an assignment of his property, in 1840, in trust for creditors, including the land in question.
Read the full summary
In error from tbe Common Pleas of Montgomery county. March 24. The question argued here.was, whether the court was right in directing the condition to be attached to the plaintiffs’ verdict. On the trial, it appeared that Hauberger, who with his wife were the plaintiffs, had made an assignment of his property, in 1840, in trust for creditors, including the land in question. The plaintiff proved, that, on the day the land was sold by the assignee, and previously, two persons, at the request of his wife, had applied to her father to purchase the property at the public sale, as she would have…
1Opinion of the Court
Coulter, J.,
(after giving an outline of the evidence.) — The real controversy between the parties would seem to be, whether Mrs. Hauberger should acquire a separate estate to her and her heirs, and which might be alienated, and that she should still be entitled to receive, during her life, the interest of the one-third part of the personal estate,, and her children the amount after *110her death: in other words, whether they should get the land and the money both, or whether she was entitled only to a separate estate during her life, the inheritance to be secured to her children as the owners of…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Werkheiser v. WerkheiserSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1832
- Coolbaugh v. PierceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1822
- Nicholas v. WolfersbergerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1819