Barkley's Appeal

15 A. 896, 2 Monag. 274, 1888 Pa. LEXIS 814
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided October 29, 1888·No. Appeal, No. 107·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

We are not persuaded that the court below erred in the disposition of this case. Mrs. Josephine Barkley, through the agency of her husband, was the actor in this partition; and, that the purpart was awarded to him, instead of to her, matters little, seeing that her money was used to pay the owelty. She was in equity the owner of the land, and could have compelled a conveyance to herself. Under such circumstances, she cannot now be allowed to resist the collection of the recognizance.

Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed at costs of appellant.

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

Barkley's Appeal, 15 A. 896, 2 Monag. 274, 1888 Pa. LEXIS 814 (Pa. 1888).

15 A. 896 (Barkley's Appeal) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bank of Am., N.A. v. Hollow De Oro Homeowners Ass'n
307 F. Supp. 3d 1121 (D. Nevada, 2018)
SHADOW WOOD HOMEOWNERS VS. NEW YORK COMMUNITY BANCORP
2016 NV 5 (Nevada Supreme Court, 2016)
Cato v. Ætna Life Insurance
138 S.E. 787 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1927)
Barkley v. Adams
27 A. 868 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1893)