Real Estate Inv. Co. v. Roop

Citations

• 132 Pa. 496
• 19 A. 278
• 1890 Pa. LEXIS 843

Syllabus

<p>1. In construing § 3, of the Married Person’s Properly Act of June 3, 1887, P. L. 332, it must be read in connection with the other sections, and the act considered as a whole; so considered, the section does not confer upon married women a general power to contract debts and bind their estates therefor.</p> <p>2. Subject to the restrictions specified in the provisos to jj§ 1 and 2, the act confers upon a married woman the power to make three classes of contracts only, to wit: (a) in connection with a trade or business in which she is engaged; (6) ill the management of her estate, and (c) for necessaries; and the authority to execute obligations is confined to one or the other of these classes.</p> <p>3. Although the fact of coverture does not appear upon the record, a judgment confessed by a married woman to secure the repayment of money borrowed by her to aid her husband in his business, being unauthorized by the said act of 1887, i> void as to her, and that fact being made to appear by testimony, the judgment as to her will be stricken from the record.</p> <p>4. When the defendant in a judgment for $680 petitions the court to open it upon the ground that being given for a loan of $500 it is usurious, if the plaintiff concedes that but $500 was loaned, alleges that the judgment was held as collateral only, and admits that his claim is only for the amount so loaned with interest, there is no good reason for opening the judgment.</p>