Elsey v. McDaniel

95 Pa. 472, 1880 Pa. LEXIS 350
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided November 1, 1880·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

The judgment of the Supreme Court'was entered

Per Curiam.

We consider this case as authoritatively ruled by the judgment of this court in Black v. Tricker, 9 P. F. Smith 13. It was held in that case that under the Act of May 5th 1855, it is not necessary that there should be a decree that a wife is to be regarded as a feme sole trader to enable her to hold property under [474] the circumstances mentioned in the act. The decree was provided for in order that creditors, purchasers and others may, with certainty and safety, transact business with a married woman. There was ample evidence-of desertion by the husband to justify the submission of the case to the jury.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Elsey v. McDaniel, 95 Pa. 472, 1880 Pa. LEXIS 350 (Pa. 1880).

95 Pa. 472 (Elsey v. McDaniel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rice v. Shank
2 Pa. D. & C.2d 430 (Mifflin County Court of Common Pleas, 1954)
Jones Petition
73 Pa. D. & C. 253 (Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, 1950)
Hockenberry's Petition
53 Pa. D. & C. 275 (Westmoreland County Court of Common Pleas, 1944)
Thornton v. Pierce
194 A. 897 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1937)
Flanagan's Estate
59 Pa. Super. 61 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1915)
Simon's Estate
20 Pa. Super. 450 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1902)
Peoples Sav. Bank v. Denig
18 A. 1083 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1890)