Bogie v. Rutledge

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas

Bogie v. Rutledge

1 S.C.L. 312

DecidedMay 15, 1793

StatusPublished

This text of 1 S.C.L. 312 (Bogie v. Rutledge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bogie v. Rutledge, 1 S.C.L. 312 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1793).

Pincite

Opinion

The Chief Justice being the plaintiff in this case, left the bench as soon as the motion was made. The two re-mainingjudges,

Burke and Bay,

after considering the case, were of opinion, for the reasons and authorities urged against the motion, that the widow was not entitled to dower in the lot in question, and accordingly directed her claim to be dismissed.

N. B.

This point has been frequently determined in our courts since the above decision, that widows of mortgagors were not entitled to dower. See Crabb v. Macomb, vol. 2.

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

The Chief Justice being the plaintiff in this case, left the bench as soon as the motion was made. The two re-mainingjudges,

Burke and Bay,

after considering the case, were of opinion, for the reasons and authorities urged against the motion, that the widow was not entitled to dower in the lot in question, and accordingly directed her claim to be dismissed.

N. B.

This point has been frequently determined in our courts since the above decision, that widows of mortgagors were not entitled to dower. See Crabb v. Macomb, vol. 2.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 S.C.L. 312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bogie-v-rutledge-pactcompl-1793.