Abell v. Chaffee

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Abell v. Chaffee

26 A. 364, 154 Pa. 254, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 878

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 10, 1893

DocketAppeal, No. 33

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 26 A. 364 (Abell v. Chaffee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abell v. Chaffee, 26 A. 364, 154 Pa. 254, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 878 (Pa. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

We might well affirm this judgment on the opinion of the learned court below, and but a few words in addition are necessary now. In the recent case of Latrobe v. Fritz, 152 Pa, [257]*257224, we considered fully a question almost precisely similar to the one arising upon the present record. There a married woman borrowed money for the security of which she confessed a judgment to the lender, and used the money in paying for the erection of one or more buildings on land belonging to her. We held the judgment to be a good and valid exercise of the contracting power conferred upon her by the act of 1887 and reversed the court below for ruling the contrary. It is not necessary to repeat the reasoning of that opinion. It is entirely applicable to the present case. Here the money was borrowed by the defendant, a married woman, for the purpose of paying off a lien upon her land, and it was actually used for that purpose. Undoubtedly she had a lawful right to borrow money for such a purpose. She could neither use nor enjoy her separate real estate in the same manner as a feme sole if she did not possess such power. And if she might make a lawful contract of borrowing for such a purpose she might be sued thereon, and of course might confess a judgment: Koechling v. Henkel, 144 Pa. 215; Latrobe v. Fritz, supra.

It is time that the profession throughout the commonwealth should understand and appreciate, that both the rights and the liabilities of married women in Pennsylvania have been greatly and radically changed and enlarged by the act of 1887. The authorities which were applicable to questions arising before the passage of that act are entirely inapplicable now. The judgment of a married woman, which was then presumably void, is now presumably valid. It is no longer necessary to such validity to set out on the record the facts which before the act were necessary to give the judgment validity: Koechling v. Henkel, supra; Latrobe v. Fritz, supra; Milligan v. Phipps, 158 Pa. 208. We find nothing to impugn the validity of the judgment confessed in the present case, and therefore

The order discharging the rule to strike off the judgment is affirmed at the cost of the appellant.

See also the next ease.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam,

We might well affirm this judgment on the opinion of the learned court below, and but a few words in addition are necessary now. In the recent case of Latrobe v. Fritz, 152 Pa, [257]*257224, we considered fully a question almost precisely similar to the one arising upon the present record. There a married woman borrowed money for the security of which she confessed a judgment to the lender, and used the money in paying for the erection of one or more buildings on land belonging to her. We held the judgment to be a good and valid exercise of the contracting power conferred upon her by the act of 1887 and reversed the court below for ruling the contrary. It is not necessary to repeat the reasoning of that opinion. It is entirely applicable to the present case. Here the money was borrowed by the defendant, a married woman, for the purpose of paying off a lien upon her land, and it was actually used for that purpose. Undoubtedly she had a lawful right to borrow money for such a purpose. She could neither use nor enjoy her separate real estate in the same manner as a feme sole if she did not possess such power. And if she might make a lawful contract of borrowing for such a purpose she might be sued thereon, and of course might confess a judgment: Koechling v. Henkel, 144 Pa. 215; Latrobe v. Fritz, supra.

It is time that the profession throughout the commonwealth should understand and appreciate, that both the rights and the liabilities of married women in Pennsylvania have been greatly and radically changed and enlarged by the act of 1887. The authorities which were applicable to questions arising before the passage of that act are entirely inapplicable now. The judgment of a married woman, which was then presumably void, is now presumably valid. It is no longer necessary to such validity to set out on the record the facts which before the act were necessary to give the judgment validity: Koechling v. Henkel, supra; Latrobe v. Fritz, supra; Milligan v. Phipps, 158 Pa. 208. We find nothing to impugn the validity of the judgment confessed in the present case, and therefore

The order discharging the rule to strike off the judgment is affirmed at the cost of the appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A. 364, 154 Pa. 254, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abell-v-chaffee-pa-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack