Ferguson v. Moore
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 47, April T., 1897, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. Butler Co., Sept. T., 1896, No. 78, on verdict for plaintiff. Trespass. Before Greer, P. J. It appeared from the record that this was an action of trespass brought by the plaintiff and his wife in the right of his wife, against Samuel C. Moore and others, in Clinton township, to recover damages for the taking of a cow belonging to the wife of the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 47, April T., 1897, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. Butler Co., Sept. T., 1896, No. 78, on verdict for plaintiff. Trespass. Before Greer, P. J. It appeared from the record that this was an action of trespass brought by the plaintiff and his wife in the right of his wife, against Samuel C. Moore and others, in Clinton township, to recover damages for the taking of a cow belonging to the wife of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the owner of a farm on which he resides with his wife and family. In the year 1894 there was assessed against Mr. Ferguson $9.60 work road tax.…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Beaver, J.,
The record in this case presents but a single question: Is the personal property of the wife while occupying real estate with her husband, as his wife, liable to be seized and sold for the taxes of the husband, assessed on such real estate during such occupancy of the real estate by the wife ? This was the form in which the question was put to the court below in the plaintiff’s point which was affirmed. The real question in the case might have been considerably narrowed under the facts, as they were developed in the trial. The testimony shows that the hus*3511 and was the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Moore v. MarshSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1869