Orrell v. Van Gorder & Shepard
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court ■ of Common Pleas, No. 1, of Allegheny county: Of October and November Term 1880, No. 31. Assumpsit by Yan Gorder & Shepard against Louisa Orrell, for goods sold and delivered. The plaintiffs brought this action against defendant as a feme sole trader- to recover the value of produce furnished to her in her business.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court ■ of Common Pleas, No. 1, of Allegheny county: Of October and November Term 1880, No. 31. Assumpsit by Yan Gorder & Shepard against Louisa Orrell, for goods sold and delivered. The plaintiffs brought this action against defendant as a feme sole trader- to recover the value of produce furnished to her in her business. It appeared that Mrs. Orrell was a huckster, and bought and sold on her own account; that her husband lived with her and occasionally worked for her, but was idle, intemperate and worthless, and made no provision of any kind for his wife, but that on the…
1Opinion of the Court
The judgment of the Supreme Court was entered November 22d 1880,
2Per curiam
This case is ruled by Black v. Tricker, 9. P. F. Smith 13, and Ely v. McDaniel, 14 Norris 472, decided at this term. In this last case it was held that the deed of a feme sole trader, without any decree and without her husband, was valid as against her, which goes much further than the case presented on this record.
Judgment affirmed.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Thornton v. PierceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
- Browarsky's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
- Simon's EstateSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
- Harley v. LeonardSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- Flanagan's EstateSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1915