Case Name: Johns Hopkins Hospital, Appellant, v. Delhamer
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1969-06-27
Citations: 434 Pa. 474
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 24
Parties: Johns Hopkins Hospital, Appellant, v. Delhamer.
Judges: Before Bell, C. J., Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien, Roberts and Pomeroy, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 434
Pages: 474–477

Head Matter:
Johns Hopkins Hospital, Appellant, v. Delhamer.
Argued May 27, 1969.
June 27, 1969:
Before Bell, C. J., Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien, Roberts and Pomeroy, JJ.
Daniel W. Shoemaker, for appellant.
Frank B. Boyle, for appellee.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Cohen,
Since the passage of the Act of April 11, 1848, P. L. 536, 48 P.S. §64 and 116, we have held on innumerable occasions that in order to bind a married woman's separate estate for medical services rendered herself and family it must be shown that those medical services were rendered at her request and on her credit.
Appellant would have us ignore the long line of cases that would permit a creditor to recover against the wife's individual estate only in the event that the debt was contracted by the wife. Moore v. Copley, 165 Pa. 294, 30 Atl. 829 (1895); Sawtelle's Appeal, 84 Pa. 306 (1877); Berger v. Clark, 79 Pa. 340 (1876); Parke v. Kleeber & Bros., 37 Pa. 251 (1860), and Mur ray v. Keyes, 35 Pa. 384 (1860). The legislature has had ample opportunity to amend the Act of 1848 and disaffirm the interpretation placed upon it since Murray v. Keyes, supra. Since the legislature has refused to do this, we will reaffirm our interpretation of the Act.
In this litigation we do not find it necessary to determine whether a liquor license in decedent's náme and subject to inheritance tax as part of decedent's estate is to be considered an asset of decedent's estate for distributive purposes. Jurisdiction to determine whether a liquor license in decedent's name at his death was an asset of decedent's estate is in the orphans' court; thus any determination made in the court of common pleas was without judicial competence.
Order affirmed.
Mr. Justice Jones took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.