Montgomery County Law Reporter

Purchase of this book includes free trial access to www.million-books.com where you can read more than a million books for free. This is an OCR edition with typos. Excerpt from book: Gertrude M. McKee v. George G. Hood. possession is not now insisted upon as strongly as it once was Eavenson vs. Pownall, 182 Pa. 589, to establish her title, still we are not aware that the rule laid down in Rhodes v. Gorden, 38 Pa. 277, is so far abrogated, that where husband and wife live together in...
More Description

Purchase of this book includes free trial access to www.million-books.com where you can read more than a million books for free. This is an OCR edition with typos. Excerpt from book: Gertrude M. McKee v. George G. Hood. possession is not now insisted upon as strongly as it once was Eavenson vs. Pownall, 182 Pa. 589, to establish her title, still we are not aware that the rule laid down in Rhodes v. Gorden, 38 Pa. 277, is so far abrogated, that where husband and wife live together in the same house the ownership of the personal property is presumed to be in the wife and not in the husband. The claimant must give bond with security to be approved by the Court, in double the value of the goods claimed by her. The rule to be allowed to give her own bond is discharged, and the time for filing a bond with surety is extended to April 18, 1908. By the Court Qlmirt of (Eommntt JJbaa of JWontgnmrry (Eounty Kathryn E. O'Neill v. Jesse Brown. In attachment proceedings, under the Act of 1869, the writ can not be quashed even if there is good cause shown for dissolving the attachment. The plaintiff is entitled to proceed with his suit as in ordinaiy case, if he can show cause of action. A claimant may waive the tort and recover the value of the goods where the tort feasor has sold the articles and received the money. The rule that there must be a conversion of the property can not apply to cash in the hands of the thief who stole it from the plaintiff. No. 91, March Term, 1908. Evans and Dettra for Plaintiff. Henry I. Fox for Defendant. Motion to quash writ of attachment. Opinion by Aaron S. Swartz, P. J. This action was commenced by writ of attachment under the Act of 1869 and its supplements. The affidavit filed by the plaintiff sets out that the defendant is indebted to her for goods, chattels and money stolen from her. She also alleges that the debt was fraudulently incurred, that the defendant is about to dispose of his property with intent to ...