Court Opinion

ID: 9702920
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:32:01.399237+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:43.522662
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Cohen :
I do not concur in the majority’s dictum interpreting Section 1 of the Act of 1907, as amended by the Act of 1955 (48 PS §§131, 132), which section the majority concedes gives the wife an equitable action in personam against the husband. The majority now limits the wife’s in personam action by denying her the right to proceed in the same action against the holders of her husband’s property and relegating such relief to a separate proceeding to enforce the in rem remedy provided for in Section 2. This misconstrues the Act. Since the legislature has given the wife recourse to an equitable proceeding our court should not restrict the method by which she exercises her newly acquired rights, nor limit the type of remedy she might pursue in order to obtain full satisfaction. Hence, I concur in the result only.