Case ID: walker_4/html/0229-01.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

ERNST VS. WAGNER.
    Where property is purchased with the wife’s money it cannot be sold for her husband’s debt.
    A conveyance by a husband to his wife of property purchased with her money is good, without the intervention of a trustee.
    Error to Common Pleas of York County. May Term, 1874.
    Amanda Sidle, wife of John Sidle, inherited money from her father, and purchased a farm in York County. She sold it to Jacob Arnold on April 2, 1858, by deed, in which her husband joined; but it was not, apparently, acknowledged by her, as required by, the Act of February 24, 1770.
    Arnold entered into possession of it, and paid some of the purchase money to John Sidle, who bought a lot of ground in Dillsburg, Pa., and paid for it with his wife’s money. The deed was made to him on April 1, 1859. She asked that it should be made to her, and he made a deed to her directly without the intervention of a trustee, on September 5, i860, which deed was recorded on March 6, 1861. John Sidle had no other property. On August 8, 1870, a judgment was recovered against John Sidle, and by further proceedings the Dillsburg lot was sold at Sheriff’s sale as the property of John Sidle, and bought by John Ernst. Ernst then brought an action of ejectment against Abraham Wagner, the tenant of Amanda Sidle. Ernst claimed that Mrs. Sidle, not having acknowledged the deed to Arnold separately, parted with nothing to him, and hence had no right to the money paid by, Arnold to her husband; and that the evidence, showing that John Sidle owned no other property in his own right, his deed to her directly, not being valid at'law and only sustainable under certain circumstances in equity, was not a proper provision for her, nor good and available for her in opposition to her husband’s creditors. The case was referred to a referee, who held that the money, paid by Arnold belonged to Mrs. Sidle, and that the property purchased by it was not liable for her husband’s debts. The Court confirmed the report, and Ernst then took a writ of error complaining of the action of the Court.
    
      W. C. Chapman, Esq., for plaintiff in error,
    argued that the money paid for the Dillsburg lot was not the property of Mrs. Sidle, and cited Richards vs. McClelland, 29 Pa. 385; Graham vs. Long, 65 Pa. 383; Glidden vs. Strupler, 52 Pa. 400; Moore vs. Connell, 68 Pa. 320. John Sidle’s conveyance to his wife of all the property he held was not a reasonable provision for her, sustainable in equity against his creditors; 2 Story’s Eq. Sect. 1374; Benedict vs. Montgomery, 7 W. & S. 238; Stickney vs. Borman, 2 Pa. 67; Coates vs. Gerlach, 44 Pa. 43.
    
      John Gibson and V. K. Keesey, Esqs., contra,
    
    argued that a wife can acquire property from her husband directly without the intervention of a trustee, if she presents an equity to support it; McKennan vs. Phillips, 6 Wh. 575; Stickney vs. Borman, 2 Pa. 67; Fisher vs. Filbert, 6 Pa. 66; Kutz’s Appeal, 40 Pa. 941 Williams’ Appeal, 47 Pa. 307; Vance vs. Nogle, 70 Pa. 1761 Morris vs. Ziegler, 71 Pa. 450. Sidle really was trustee for his wife; Strimpfler vs. Roberts, 18 Pa. 283; Kline’s Appeal, 39 Pa. 463.
   The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Common Pleas on May 18, 1874, in the following opinion:

Per Curiam.

It is very clear that the money, which paid for the property in question was that of Mrs. Sidle. It is not doubted, this being so, that tire conveyance to her husband was for her use, which he executed by his conveyance to her. The point made is, that this money was paid by one who purchased her real estate, but to whom a valid conveyance was not made, by reason of her failure to make a separate acknowledgment required by the Act of 1770. The purchaser went into possession under his deed and never has been ousted, and she has never made a, claim against him. The point, however, is not well taken, for it cannot be doubted that the money, paid by the purchaser of her estate was her money; whatever claim he might make-against her 011 the ground of the defect in his title, if indeed he could recover from her at all. Clearly it was not the money-of her husband. If not hers, it certainly was not his. As between him and her, or between his creditors and her, she alone-was the owner of the money. Hence when he conveyed toiler he conveyed nothing to which his creditors had any valid, claim. Even if the purchaser from her could recover from her the money she had received, her husband had no title to it, and would be bound to restore it to her, to enable her to refund it. In addition to the debt for which the property, was sold as Sheriff’s sale as the estate of her husband, arose long after the husband’s deed to his wife. When sold at Sheriff’s sale the-husband had no title in law or equity. On no ground, therefore,, was the plaintiff below entitled to recover the property from the tenants of Mrs. Sidle.-

Judgment affirmed.