Case Name: Bohner versus Cummings et ux., Defendants, and Troutman et al., Garnishees
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1879-06-09
Citations: 91 Pa. 55
Docket Number: No. 98
Parties: Bohner versus Cummings et ux., Defendants, and Troutman et al., Garnishees.
Judges: Before Sharswood, C. J., Mercur, Gordon, Paxson, Woodward, Trunkey and Sterrett, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 91
Pages: 55–56

Head Matter:
Bohner versus Cummings et ux., Defendants, and Troutman et al., Garnishees.
Attachments were issued by creditors of O. against several judgments which appeared on the docket in favor of 0., as agent. Evidence was offered to show that these judgments belonged to the wife of O. and that the latter had taken them as the agent of his wife, for money loaned out of her separate estate. Held, that the evidence was properly admitted, and that the question of the agency was for the jury.
May 28th 1879.
Before Sharswood, C. J., Mercur, Gordon, Paxson, Woodward, Trunkey and Sterrett, JJ.
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Juniata county: Of May Term 1879, No. 98.
Attachment-execution issued by David Bohner against A. S. Cummings and Louisa Cummings, as defendants, and S. Troutman and others, as garnishees.
Plaintiff obtained a judgment against A. S. Cummings for $1360, and issued this attachment-execution against several judgments in defendant’s favor, which were entered upon the docket as follows: A. S. Cummings, agent, v. H. & S. Troutman, No. 154, Sept. Term, 1875, Debt, $953; Same v. Same, No. 155, Sept. Term, 3875, Debt, 375. Same v. Same, No. 127, Dec. Term 1875, Debt $825. At the trial, before junkin, P. J., the defendants offered to prove by Mrs. Cummings that her husband had loaned money .to the Troutmans, as her agent, that the money belonged to her, and that these judgments were given therefor. Also, to prove that she had a large sum of money, which was her eparate estate, and that it had been invested by her husband, as her agent. The court overruled the objections to both of these offers and admitted the evidence. The court left it to the jury to determine what was the amonnt of Mrs. Cummings’s separate estate, and whether it had been invested by her husband as her agent. The verdict was for defendants, and after judgment plaintiff took this writ and alleged, inter alia, that the court erred in admitting the above evidence and in submitting the foregoing questions to the jury.
L. E. Atkinson and Charles Hower, for plaintiff in error.
Ed. S. Doty and S. B. Boyer, for defendants in error.
June 9th 1879,

Opinion:
The judgment of the Supreme Court was entered
Per Curiam.
It is unnecessary to examine the assignments of error in detail. We find nothing of which the plaintiff in error has any just ground to complain. That the married woman had a separate estate was not seriously denied. The only question was, whether it had been invested by her husband as her agent, in the obligations attached. This question was fairly submitted to the jury by the learned court below, upon the evidence, and upon no established principle of law could it have been taken from them.
Judgment affirmed.