The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1901-08-16

The following straight from the
shoulder opinion has been handed down
by President Judge Edwards in the
case of w. W. Watt against John NC
Comb, rule for n new trial:
In the interest ot Justice and common honcs'y
this verdict ought to stand. II should not be dis.
turbcd unless for clear error Of Law. The facts
involved in this are few and simple.
l. W W Watt, in june, 1872, entered into
contract with Mary Kall 10 sell her piece of
land situated in the city OF tarhondalc, ior the
sum Of $3.50 While the Ncndcr and vcndcc as
named in the contract are W. ". Watt and Mary
Kahl, tho contract itself is signed by W, W.
Watt, II. Klhl and Mary kahl The consideration
money was TO be paid in annual inSal'mcnt'
Some payments were made on the contract ny
tho kahlS.
. In March. IS,i the contract was tranfcrrod
10 John Comb, the attendant, he paying TO
tho Ksbls 500 The assignment was endorsed
upon the contract and was signed 10y H. NAM
ard Mary Kahl Tho defendant took possession
Of the land at the time Of the transfer and has
been in possession ever since.
g. After the defendant went into possession he
raid the plaintiff Sj3l.7I on account "f the
Kahls contract The amount of this payment
was the only fact submitted 10 the jury, the
p'aintif claiming { only sil6.1i. On TINS
roint the Jury found in favor Of the defendant
g. The defendant, t1llfu ON Nlh~N''NdHlild'l''
said hc went into possession ot tine lana und'r
the Kahl contract and assignment
The lofcudcnt offered two dCiCrSCs; tl Mary
Kshl was a married woman and her assignment
of the contract was vcid because it was not
acknowledged in the manner required by stature
co Adverse possession for period of over twcn'
tv.nnc years We ruled ont both offers. holding
tha, the defendant was cStoppcd from making
either Was this error We think not.
For the purposes of ;hi. ease and in the con-
eidcratiou of the rule tor new trial Mary kihl
must hc treated a> married woman, because
the defendant offered to prove this TACT II must
be conceded that If the case involved only the
relation between ". w. Watt and Mary kahI
under the contract uf Jane. l>12, she would he
bound to pay the balance ~ the purchase money
and that she could not plead yoccrturc as de-
fensc 4 long line OF eases. beginning with
Patterson rs. Robinson, - Pa 81 and followed
hv Ramborgcr's Adm Va lngIaham. IS Pa lld,
Pninner's Appeal. i7 Pa. 81, SohloSScr's Appeal,
IS Pa. 4o3 Shrydcr ~. Nolic, % Pa. 9S6, Van
Dvke vs. Wells and wife, los Pa. a. and numcr-
Gus other cases, the doctrine is laid down that
50 far As real estate purchased 10y married
women is concerned she may bind II for the pur'
chase money in any manner that she might were
she sole. "1he conveyance with the lien for the
unpaid purchase money is one Transaction and
we must treat both tho benefit and the burden as
valid" The obligation Of a married woman TO
pay purchase money. though not a personal ono.
VIII constitute q Ndlll ll'll upon i've Ih'IN''N'
We presume that tho defendants counsel las
no quarrel with the law of the cases we have
cited above, hut relies upon another line of de-
csions mary ot them. such as StiNCrs ". stuck.
ers ct al 1876 Pa. q, and tho eases therein cited,
which decide that tn, interest Of married
woman in real estate Gauuot he Invested except
in the mode pointed out by our statute. and that
she cannot he cstoppcd hv acts aud declarations
which in the case of a tcIne SOlC would operate
as an cstoppcl while the application Of thi,
doctrine has worked hardship in some cases, it
is considered 10 he in the line -, wise public
policy. being for the protection of the married
woman. But how docs the principle amply to
the case. at bar: Mary kah il not here pleading
her Coycrture. Sh" is not asking for protection
As was said in Patterson, rS Robinson supra :
'Thc disability of covcrturc is thrown around
her for the protection OF the rights Of herself
and her husband. II j. shield for defense, not
a weapon for mischief" Say that the defendant
took possession of tho land under an assignment
of the Watt contract he is not in a position 10
plead for disability because he is cStoppcd. lie
has rad the h,rcit and why should he not -.
sumo the burden. 10 say The least, his Cortcn.
tion is contrary 10 good morals. lie says in
effect: ct is true | went into possession under
the assigned contract and that | paid the plain
tiff $500 on account of the land; hut have dis.
covered since that there is detect in the Kshl
assignment in that j. vas not Acknowledged,
as required hv law. shall therefore pay no
more money ON the contract and having been
in possession over twcuty.onc years, I shall keep
tho land and save the balance Of the purchase
money" In doing this he i, in the same posi-,
tion as the defendant in the case ~ Gowton ".
Wickcrsham, "a Pa 3u2 who refused f. pay
ground rent because his predecessor in the title,
being a married womar could not make 4 nnd.
ing covenant The court saw:
"If Mrs Stcinruch had been single woman, +,
the defendant would not have damurrcd to tho
d,mand Of CgrounD rent Lu he docs So because
she is a married woman aud vet all the title
he has to the Land comes through her and tho
validity Of it depends entirely upon nor power
10 receive and transmit it to the defendant
and inc defendant is c,toppcd from Dis
nutinr tho comuclcnrv ui Mrs Sciurr h.
,brouyb whom his titlc ia tho ground Is dcri, cd