Case Name: HOUCK et al v. RITTER
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1874-10-12
Citations: 2 Foster 278
Docket Number: 
Parties: HOUCK et al v. RITTER.
Judges: 
Reporter: Legal Chronicle reports of Cases decided in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Foster)
Volume: 2
Pages: 278–278

Head Matter:
In the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
HOUCK et al v. RITTER.
A husband’s assent to the execution of a deed by his wife must be in the manner and form required by the statute.
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon county.

Opinion:
Opinion delivered Oct. 12, 1874, by
Gordon, J.
The offer of the defendant was not sufficient to raise the question of estoppel as against the plaintiff, and hence was properly rejected.
The assent, or consent of the plaintiff to the execution of the deed by his wife, unless given in the manner and form required by the statute, amounted to nothing. We cannot see that the case was helped by the offer to prove that the woman was induced to take, in lieu of money, a note upon her husband, for the note belonged to her as much as the cash would have done, had it been paid ; and so far as he was concerned — as has been well said by the judge who tried the case — there was merely a change of creditors. In the case of Johnson v. Fritz, 8 W. 449, it was proved that the husband actually received part of the purchase-money paid to his wife, and hence it was held, that he was estopped from claiming his courtesy in the land. For my own part, I think this case carries the doctrine of estoppel, quite as far as it should go; nevertheless, did the offer come within this ruling, it would determine the question in favor of the plaintiff in error; but it does not. There is nothing in the offer which proposes to show that the plaintiff derived any benefit whatever from the sale, and we cannot presume that he did.
The note, if not paid during her life, would, at her death, form part of her estate, and as such, be the subject of distribution, either under her will, or under the intestate laws, as the case might be, but it does not follow that in either event, he would be a beneficiary.
Judgment affirmed.