Young v. Senft
Young v. Senft
Opinion of the Court
Wo find nothing to criticise in the rulings of the learned judge below, either upon the points submitted, or in his general charge. Nor do we think that Mary Senft was an incompetent witness. Her case does not come within any of the exceptions of any of the acts of assembly, relating to the competency of witnesses, nor do we think it comes within their spirit. She was not called to testify against her husband, or against his title. The plaintiff made both Frederick Senft, and his wife, defendants. They both joined in and filed an abstract of title by which they both alleged that Mary Senft was the lawful owner of the property in dispute. It will be
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Cited By
- 4 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Ejectment — Evidence—Wife—Title of husband — Act, May 23, 1887. Where an action of ejectment is brought against a husband and wife by a sheriff’s vendee of land sold .as the property of the husband, but claimed by the wife, where both defendants join in an abstract of title in which the wife is-alleged to be the owner of'the property, the wife is a competent witness. She was not called to testify against her husband or against his title. Husband and wife — Sale of wife's property for husband's debt — Title— Estoppel. Where laird is bought with a wife’s money, but the deed is taken without her knowledge in her husband’s name, and subsequently she discovers the mistake and promptly insists upon a conveyance to herself, the property cannot be sold for a debt of the husband contracted during the time in which the property stood in his name. It seems that if,'instead of promptly insisting upon a conveyance to herself, she allows the title to remain in her husband until after he contracts a, debt, she will be estopped as against that creditor Erom denying the title of her husband.