Koechling v. Henkel

Citations

• 144 Pa. 215
• 22 A. 808
• 1891 Pa. LEXIS 600

Syllabus

<p>1. Since the passage of the married persons’ property act of June 3, 1887, P. L. 332, a married woman may engage in business, and enter into contracts in regard to it, or in regard to the management of her separate estate, or for necessaries, as fully as a feme sole; and she may confess a judgment for an indebtedness, whenever by her' contract she may subject herself to a liability to be sued.</p> <p>2. A judgment confessed by a married woman, regular on its face, her coverture not appearing, cannot be questioned on distribution by a stranger to it, on the ground that the record does not exhibit facts showing that it was authorized by the act of 1887: Real Estate Co: v. Roop, 132 Pa 496; Baker v. Singer Co., 122 Pa. 363; Mahon v. Gormley, 24 Pa. 80; Ilecker v. Haak, 88 Pa. 238, distinguished.</p> <p>3. “ We cannot say, since the act of 1887, that a judgment confessed by a married woman is void. At most, it is voidable, and may be set aside upon her application, where it is made to appear that it was not authorized by the act. But, so general is her power to contract now, that her inability is the exception, rather than the rule: ” Per Curiam.</p>