Romik v. Sech
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 37, Jan. T., 1904, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Luzerne Co., Dec. T., 1902, No. 292, on verdict for plaintiff in case of George Romik v. Mary Sech. Ejectment for land in the borough of Nanticoke.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 37, Jan. T., 1904, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Luzerne Co., Dec. T., 1902, No. 292, on verdict for plaintiff in case of George Romik v. Mary Sech. Ejectment for land in the borough of Nanticoke. Before Wheaton, J. At the trial defendant presented this point: 4. If the jury believe that the business transaction was, so far as the keeping of boarders and attending to their wants was conducted wholly and exclusively by Mrs. Mary Sech, then the earnings accruing from said business belong exclusively to the wife Mary Sech. Answer: As I stated before, under the law as I…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Orlady J.,
In answer to the plaintiff’s second point the learned trial • judge stated, viz : “ I feel constrained by the authority of the Supreme Court, as I understand it, and as it has been interpreted by other judges, to decline to affirm that point. . . . Personally and without such authority I should be disposed to affirm this point as a proposition of law, but in the face of what I consider the authority of the Supreme Court I feel bound to decline it.” And in answer to the defendant's fourth point said, viz : “ As I stated before, under the law as I under- ' stand it, I am…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- McKibbin v. MartinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1870
- Young v. MerkelSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894