Shnyder v. Noble

• Decision Date: 03 May 1880
• Citation: 94 Pa. 286
• Parties: Shnyder <I>versus</I> Noble.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

94 Pa. 286

Shnyder versus Noble.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

March 31, 1880.

May 3, 1880.

March 31st 1880.

Before SHARSWOOD, C. J., MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON, TRUNKEY and STERRETT, JJ. GREEN, J., absent

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton county: Of January Term 1880, No. 147.

William C. Shipman, for plaintiff in error.—In has been repeatedly held by this court that a judgment entered on the bond of a married woman by virtue of her warrant of attorney must be upheld: Patterson v. Robinson, 1 Casey 82; Ramborger's Adm'rs. v. Ingraham, 2 Wright 146; Brunner's Appeal, 11 Id. 73, and Sawtelle's Appeal, 3 Norris 306.

It is not easy to discover a difference or a distinction between these cases and the case at bar. If a married woman's bond with warrant to confess judgment will be upheld, why not her bond without the warrant? Where can a distinction be drawn between them? Surely the warrant of attorney did not render the judgments in either of the above cited cases valid. If the bonds were void, certainly the warrant could not breathe life into them. Both the bond and the warrant were personal obligations, and stand in pari materia, and both must be valid or both void.

It is not contended in this argument that a married woman is personally liable, but her obligations given for purchase-money should be enforced against the land which she obtains. The court below has equitable powers over its judgment, and while the judgment is general, as in Patterson v. Robinson, the court can restrict the execution.

W. S. Kirkpatrick, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice GORDON delivered the opinion of the court, May 3d 1880.

On the 16th of October 1875, in consideration of $10,000, Daniel H. Shnyder, the plaintiff, sold and conveyed, by deed in fee simple, to Anna M. Noble, the defendant, certain real estate in the borough of Easton. At the same time, to secure a balance of the purchase-money, the defendant and her husband executed to Shnyder a bond and mortgage. The bond was made payable in five years from its date, and conditioned, inter alia, for the payment of interest annually. Default was made in the payment falling due April 16th 1878, thereupon suit was brought and judgment by default had for the amount remaining due and unpaid. Afterwards, on motion, this judgment was opened as to Mrs. Noble, and, on the trial which followed, the court below charged the jury as follows: "It is admitted that Anna M. Noble, at the time of the execution by her of the obligation in suit, was a married woman, and though it was given for the balance of purchase-money of real estate conveyed by the plaintiff to her, and secured by mortgage, there can be no recovery against her on the obligation by reason of her coverture." This was erroneous; for, in the first place, where a married...