Case ID: pa_148/html/0157-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Delaney v. Mulligan, Appellant.
    
      Married woman — Separate property — Contest with Jmsband’s creditors.
    
    In a contest between a wife and creditors of her husband regarding the title to property claimed by her, the question of fact whether she purchased the property with her own money is to be determined by the jury.
    Argued Feb. 16, 1892.
    Appeal, No. 340, Jan. T., 1891, by defendants, Patrick Mulligan et ah, from judgment of G. P. Schuylkill Co., July T., 1887, No. 218, on verdict for plaintiff, Honora Delaney, in ejectment.
    Before Paxson G. J., Steeeett, Geeen, Williams and IIeydeioic, JJ.
    
      Ejectment by a married woman claiming title as against her husband’s creditors.
    The facts appear by the charge of the court below, Bechtel, J., which was in part as follows:
    “ In a contest between a married woman and the creditors of her husband, she is required to show by clear, full and satisfactory proof that the money with which she bought the property she claims was her own, and belonged to her own separate estate, and was not the property or money of the husband. The defendants claim that she has not so proved her claim in this case — [that she has failed to furnish clear, full and satisfactory evidence that she purchased the property with money belonging to her own separate estate: and they claim that it was the money of her husband that paid for the property, and that the title was put in her name to cheat and defraud defendants’ creditors, and particularly Thomas Connerton, one of the defendants. If you find such to be the ease, that the property was thus acquired and the title put in Honora Delaney for such purpose, then the defendants would be entitled to your verdict.] [1]
    “ But the plaintiffs deny that she acquired the property in that way, and [she testifies that her husband and one Crowe had an insurance policy on the life of her father-in-law, and that her husband, being unable to pay the assessments, she obtained the money to pay for the same from her mother and brother and friends as a gift, and did so pay the same with such money, and not one cent of the money belonged to her husband.] [2] [She testifies that when her husband’s father died she received $750 of the insurance, by reason of her having furnished the money to take out the policy and to keep it up, and that every cent of the money paid by her for' the property in question was paid out of this money, and none of it belonged to her husband.] [3] She also testified that she got the money in March, 1879, more than two years before the debt due to Connerton by Matthew Delaney was contracted.
    “ Now, if you find from the evidence before you that such is the fact, that she did thus acquire the money with which she bought and paid for the buildings and leased lot or property in question, and find that the transaction is honest, bona fide, and fair, and not intended to hinder and delay, or cheat and defraud creditors of the husband, Matthew Delaney, or the particular creditor, Thomas Connerton, then she is entitled to your verdict, and if you so find, you must render a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs for the property described in the writ with six cents damages and costs.”
    March 28, 1892:
    Verdict for plaintiff and judgment thereon. Defendant appealed.
    
      Errors assigned were, inter alia, (1-8) the portions of the charge above indicated, quoting them.
    
      •J. W. Roseberry, M. M. Id Velle with him, for appellants,
    argued that the evidence of ownership did not come up to the required standard.
    
      G-eorge J. Waddinger, for appellee, not heard.
   Per Curiam,

Judgment affirmed.