Wayne v. Lewis

16 A. 862, 1 Monag. 305, 1889 Pa. LEXIS 1306
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided February 25, 1889·No. No. 41·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Judgment affirmed.

Cf. Orr v. Bornstein, decided Feb. 25, 1889, where it is said: “ In Leinbach v. Templin, 105 Pa. 522, a married woman was in possession of property which appeared to have been bought and paid for, in part at least, by her earnings in a business which she carried on prior to obtaining the benefits of the Act of 1872.”

The point expressly decided in Orr v. Bornstein is that a married woman who has complied with the requirements of the Act of April 3,1872, in regard to separate earnings, may borrow money upon her own credit, whether possessed of separate estate or not; and a stock of goods, purchased with money borrowed upon her own credit, is not liable to be seized by her husband’s creditors.

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

Wayne v. Lewis, 16 A. 862, 1 Monag. 305, 1889 Pa. LEXIS 1306 (Pa. 1889).

16 A. 862 (Wayne v. Lewis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Frost v. Knapp
10 Pa. Super. 296 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1899)