Case Name: PURMAN et al. v. PORTER et ux.
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1874-01-06
Citations: 2 Foster 17
Docket Number: 
Parties: PURMAN et al. v. PORTER et ux.
Judges: 
Reporter: Legal Chronicle reports of Cases decided in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Foster)
Volume: 2
Pages: 17–19

Head Matter:
In the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. WESTERN DISTRICT.
PURMAN et al. v. PORTER et ux.
Property acquired by a married women on the credit of her separate estate, and afterwards paid for by profits arising out of it, is not liable for the debts of her husband.
Agnew C. J. Dissents.
Error to'Common Pleas of G-reene Co.

Opinion:
Opinion delivered January 6, 1874, by,
Mercur J.
Since the act of x ith of April, 1848, it has been settled by numerous decisions of this court, that the proceeds of the wife's separate property cannot be seized for the husband's debt. Manderbach v. Mock, 5 Barr 43; Rush v. Voight, 5 P. F. Smith 437; Brown v. Pendleton et al. 10 P. F. Smith 419; Meesser v. Gardner, 16 P. F. Smith 242. If her property be real estate, the fact that her husband's labor assisted in creating the products derived therefrom, does not make them liable for his debt: Rush v. Voight, supra.
Property purchased by a wife on the credit of her separate estate, or by her earnings, derived from the management of it, is protected from her husband's creditors: Brown v. Pendleton et al. supra. The jury has found that the property in question was acquired by Mrs. Porter upon the credit of her separate estate, and that it was afterward paid for out of the proceeds which derived from Cosgrave's occupancy of the same. The first and fourth assignments are not sustained. Under the evidence the court was correct in refusing to affirm the point covered by the second assignment. There was no testimony that Mrs. Porter acquired the property otherwise than as her share of the profits under her agreement with Cos-grave. It is error to submit a question of fact to the jury of which there is no evidence: Sartwell v. Wilcox, 8 Harris 117; Torver et al. v. Clement, 1 Casey 63.
The manner in which the point, covered by the third assignment, was presented, is so unusual, we at first supposed the word "disbelieve" .had been inadvertently.used for "believe," and that the court must have so understood it. An examination of the original written point, however, as well as the fact that in the fifth point presented by the defendant below the language is changed to "believe," leaving the point otherwise the same, satisfied us it was designed as written. The plaintiff below could not r-ecover without evidence. Evidence is such proof of the fact alleged, as satisfies the mind. If all the testimony given in support of the allegation is disbelieved, it necessarily follows that the mind would be unsatisfied, the evidence would be insufficient, and the plaintiff could not recover. As the credibility of witnesses is a proper question for the jury to pass upon, and the point submitted clearly raised that question it should have been affirmed. The affirmance however, should have been accompanied by proper explanations and instructions, as to weighing the testimony and testing the credibility of witnesses. The third assignment is therefore sustained.
Judgment reversed, and venire facias, de novo awarded.