McFadden v. McFadden

Citations

• 32 Pa. Super. 534
• 1907 Pa. Super. LEXIS 48

Syllabus

<p>Dower — Deed—■Assignment for benefit of creditors.</p> <p>Where a wife does not join with her husband in a deed of assignment for the benefit of his creditors, she may after her husband’s death maintain her common-law action of dower against the purchaser at the assignee’s sale.</p> <p>Practice, C. P. — Removal of cause to United States court.</p> <p>A cause will not be removed to a federal court on the ground that certain parties in interest are not residents of Pennsylvania, where it appears that the application for removal is made by the only defendant in the case who is present, and is admittedly a resident of Pennsylvania.</p> <p>Practice, C. P.- — Plea of surprise — Continuance.</p> <p>The refusal of the court to heed the plea of surprise and continue the case, is, under ordinary conditions, a matter of discretion.</p> <p>Marriage — Evidence—Reputation—Cohabitation.</p> <p>In a common-law action of dower, the plaintiff’s marriage may be proved by evidence of reputation and cohabitation, and in the absence of other evidence on the subject, may be conclusive.</p> <p>Practice, C. P. — Refusal of new trial — Assignment of error.</p> <p>The refusal of the court below to grant a new trial, is not the subject of an assignment of error, except for a gross abuse of discretion.</p> <p>Dower — Common-law action — Evidence.</p> <p>In a common-law action of dower brought by a widow who had not joined her husband in a deed of assignment for the benefit of his creditors, it is incompetent to show that no action was brought by the plaintiff against the assignee for dower, during his administration of the estate; or that an auditor had decided adversely to plaintiff’s claim for dower against funds in the hands of the assignee.</p> <p>Practice, C. P. — Dower—Form of verdict — Evidence—Deeds.</p> <p>In a common-law action of dower a verdict in the following form is not improper; “For plaintiff for one-third of the real estate described in the writ.” Such a verdict cannot in t