Hutchinson v. Dennis

Citations

• 217 Pa. 290
• 66 A. 524
• 1907 Pa. LEXIS 699

Syllabus

<p>Equity — Equity practice — Multifariousness■—Husband and wife.</p> <p>A bill in equity by a father against his children is bad for multifariousness, which prays (1) that money deposited in a saving fund in the name of complainant’s deceased wife should be declared in fact the property of the husband; (2) that certain real estate in the wife’s name should be declared in fact to be complainant’s by virtue of a resulting trust from the payment of the purchase money; and (3) that the conveyance of certain other real estate to his children should be rescinded on the ground that it was procured by undue advantage taken of his ignorance.</p> <p>Where a husband has taken out letters of administration on his deceased wife’s estate, and has taken possession of money deposited in a saving fund in the name of his wife, he cannot thereafter by a bill in equity against his children seek to have the ownership of such money established in himself. Having brought himself within the jurisdiction of the orphans’ court, he must have his title to the money adjudicated there.</p> <p>Ejectment — Rule to bring ejectment — Acts of May 25, 1893, P. L. 131 and June 10, 1893, P. L. 415.</p> <p>The Acts of May 25, 1893, P. L. 131 and June 10, 1893, P. L. 415, giving a right to a person in possession of real estate to compel one out of possession but claiming title, to bring an ejectment, are not exclusive of the remedy by a bill in equity.</p> <p>Where equity has jurisdiction, it is not taken away by a subsequent jurisdiction conferred on courts of law.</p>