154 Pa. 254 | Pa. | 1893
We might well affirm this judgment on the opinion of the learned court below, and but a few words in addition are necessary now. In the recent case of Latrobe v. Fritz, 152 Pa,
It is time that the profession throughout the commonwealth should understand and appreciate, that both the rights and the liabilities of married women in Pennsylvania have been greatly and radically changed and enlarged by the act of 1887. The authorities which were applicable to questions arising before the passage of that act are entirely inapplicable now. The judgment of a married woman, which was then presumably void, is now presumably valid. It is no longer necessary to such validity to set out on the record the facts which before the act were necessary to give the judgment validity: Koechling v. Henkel, supra; Latrobe v. Fritz, supra; Milligan v. Phipps, 158 Pa. 208. We find nothing to impugn the validity of the judgment confessed in the present case, and therefore
The order discharging the rule to strike off the judgment is affirmed at the cost of the appellant.
See also the next ease.