Still v. Rulby

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Still v. Rulby

35 Pa. 373

DecidedJuly 1, 1860

StatusPublished

This text of 35 Pa. 373 (Still v. Rulby) 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

Still v. Rulby, 35 Pa. 373 (Pa. 1860).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Woodward, J.

The affidavit disclosed no defence whatever. Mrs. Ruckstoo'l, as appeared on the face of the mortgage, was only trustee for The Heart and Hand Female Beneficial Society, in whom the beneficial interest of the mortgage was vested. Femes covert, like infants, lunatics, and others non sui juris, may be trustees, subject, of course, to their legal incapacity to deal with the estate vested in them: Hill on Trustees 49. The incapacity of Mrs. Ruckstool to sue in her own name was obviated by her husband joining with her. The mortgagors must pay the money as they agreed to do.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Woodward, J.

The affidavit disclosed no defence whatever. Mrs. Ruckstoo'l, as appeared on the face of the mortgage, was only trustee for The Heart and Hand Female Beneficial Society, in whom the beneficial interest of the mortgage was vested. Femes covert, like infants, lunatics, and others non sui juris, may be trustees, subject, of course, to their legal incapacity to deal with the estate vested in them: Hill on Trustees 49. The incapacity of Mrs. Ruckstool to sue in her own name was obviated by her husband joining with her. The mortgagors must pay the money as they agreed to do.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 Pa. 373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/still-v-rulby-pa-1860.