Haffey v. Carey

• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Sharswood
• Citation: Haffey v. Carey, 73 Pa. 431 (Pa. 1873)
• Decision Date: 17 May 1873
• Parties: Haffey <I>et ux. versus</I> Carey <I>et al.</I>

73 Pa. 431

Haffey et ux. versus Carey et al.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

March 27, 1873.

May 17, 1873.

March 27th 1873.

Before READ, C. J., AGNEW, SHARSWOOD and MERCUR, JJ. WILLIAMS, J., at Nisi Prius

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of McKean county: No. 265, to January Term 1872 J. C. Backus and R. Brown, for plaintiffs in error, cited Wright v. Brown, 8 Wright 224; Wilson v. Shoenberger, 7 Casey 295; Magaw v. Stevenson, 1 Grant 402; also, Married Woman's Act, April 11th 1848, sect. 6, Pamph. L. 536, 2 Br. Purd. 1005, pl. 13.

R. D. Hamlin, for defendants in error, cited Ter-Hoven v. Kerns, 2 Barr 96; Stewart v. Stocker, 1 Watts 140; Moroney's Appeal, 12 Harris 372; Lytle's Appeal, 12 Casey 121; Black v. Galaway, 12 Harris 19; Miner v. Graham, Id. 491; Shinn v. Holmes, 1 Casey 142; Woodward v. Wilson, 18 P. F. Smith 208.

The opinion of the court was delivered, May 17th 1873, by SHARSWOOD, J.

It is well settled that a married woman may mortgage her estate for her husband's benefit, or to secure the payment of his debts: Hoover v. The Samaritan Society, 4 Whart. 445; Black v. Galaway, 12 Harris 19; Miner v. Graham, Id. 491; Lytle's Appeal, 12 Casey 131. This being so, there is no reason why she may not do so to secure future as well as existing indebtedness: Lyle v. Ducomb, 5 Binn. 585. Indeed, in point of policy, there are considerations in favor of the latter which cannot be urged for the former. The wife's property being thus pledged to secure credit for her husband may enable him to engage in business, and by his enterprise and industry make a good living both for him and her and their family. Nor is it necessary that the provision of the Act of April 11th 1848, Pamph. L. 533, as to the acknowledgment of the mortgage should be observed. An acknowledgment in conformity to the law, before that, to enable a married woman to pass her estate, is sufficient, as has been more than once decided, and confirmed by the Act of Assembly of April 9th 1849, Pamph. L. 526; April 18th 1853, Id. 573; April 11th 1856, Id. 315; Miner v. Graham, 12 Harris 491; Shinn v. Holmes, 1 Casey 142; Stoops v. Blackford, 3 Id. 213. It was not intended in Moore v. Cornell, 18 P. F. Smith 320, to depart in the least from these authorities, or to hold that in an assignment of a wife's mortgage, by husband and wife, it was necessary that the acknowledgment should be in any other form or before any other officer than is required in any other case where the contract of a married woman in realty is to be bound or transferred. The Act of ...