Case ID: pa_158/html/0295-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pen Curiam,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Murdock, Appellant, v. Wasson.
    
      Married women — Contract signed by husband — Transcript in common pleas of judgment of justice of the peace — Striking off.
    
    A judgment against a married woman, entered in the common pleas on a transcript of a judgment recovered before a justice of the peace, will be stricken off where the transcript of the justice shows a judgment entered against husband and wife under the following condition of the transcript: “Plaintiff claims the sum of $175 due by the defendants as commission on the sale of certain property, sold by plaintiff for defendants per contract, to wit, five per centum on $3,500. Plaintiff sworn and produces in evidence above recited contract signed by Thos. Wasson,” the husband alone.
    Argued Oct. 24, 1893.
    Appeal, No. 64, Oct. T., 1893, by plaintiff, G. A. Murdock, from order of C. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., July T., 1892, No. 298, making absolute rule to strike off judgment against Martha Wasson.
    Before Sterrett, C. J., Green, McCollum, Mitchell and Thompson, JJ.
    
      Rule to strike off judgment.
    The judgment was recovered before an alderman and a transcript filed in the common pleas. The transcript of the aider-man, after showing service on defendants, appearance and adjournment by agreement to June 8, 1892, was as follows:
    “ And now, June 8, 1892, plaintiff appears. Defendants do not appear. Plaintiff claims the sum of $175 due by the defendants as commission on the sale of certain property, sold by plaintiff for defendants per contract, to wit: five per centum on $3,500. Plaintiff sworn and produces in evidence above recited contract, signed by Thomas Wasson. No evidence for defendants. Whereupon, after hearing the proofs and allegations, judgment publically in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants for the sum of one hundred and seventy-five dollars and costs of suit.”
    The court made absolute a rule to strike off the judgment against Martha Wasson, in an opinion by Ewing, P. J.
    
      Error assigned was order as above.
    
      Galen O. Hartman, for appellant,
    cited: Act of June 3, 1887, P. L. 332; Real Est. Co. v. Roop, 132 Pa. 496; Koechling v. Henkel, 144 Pa. 215; Endlich & Richards on Married Women, § 288; Lacock v. White, 19 Pa. 495; Boyd v. Miller, 52 Pa. 431; Littster v. Littster, 151 Pa. 474.
    
      J. A. Langfitt and J. C. Boyer, for appellee,
    not heard, cited : Gallagher v. Swan, 155 Pa. 15; Brown v. McKinney, 130 Pa. 365.
    November 6, 1893:
   Pen Curiam,

The defendants, Thomas Wasson and Martha Wasson, were sued as husband and wife; and, as shown by the justice’s transcript, the only evidence in support of plaintiff’s claim was a contract signed by the husband alone. This, without more, was insufficient to support a judgment against the wife, and hence there was no error in striking off the judgment as to her.

Order striking off the judgment against Martha Wasson affirmed, and appeal dismissed with costs to be paid by appellant,