Appeal, No. 9, Oct. T., 1958, from judgment of Municipal Court of Philadelphia, Jan. T., 1953, No. 647, in case of Dura Seal Products Co., Inc. v. Jack Carver, individually and trading as General Sales and Service Company, et al. Judgment reversed.
Bertram U. Weinberg, for appellant.
Bernard R. Cohn, for appellee.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, and Watkins, JJ.
[ 186 Pa. Super. Page 426]
This is an appeal from the Municipal Court of Philadelphia which, after refusing the judgment creditor's motion for a new trial, entered judgment in favor of the claimants, Jack Carver and his wife, Edith, in whose favor a jury had found in a sheriff's interpleader. Appellant had issued execution on a judgment against the husband, and levied upon the furniture which was being used by the husband and wife in the house in which they both resided. The case was here before, when we affirmed the granting of a new trial, and in our opinion set forth additional facts not necessary to the determination of the matter before us.
There is only one question involved in this appeal. When a husband and wife reside together in the same house, is there a presumption that title to the household goods and furnishings used by them is in the husband, or is there a presumption that title is in the husband and wife by entireties?
It has long been settled by the Appellate Courts of this Commonwealth that where a husband and wife live in the same house, ownership of personal property in possession of both is presumed to be in the husband. Rhoads v. Gordon, 38 Pa. 277 (1861); Kauffman v. Stenger, 151 Pa. Superior Ct. 313, 316, 30 A.2d 239 (1943); Chadwick Estate, 154 Pa. Superior Ct. 157, 160,
[ 186 Pa. Super. Page 42735]
A.2d 582 (1944); Matheny's Estate, 164 Pa. Superior Ct. 18, 22, 63 A.2d 477 (1949); Schwartz Estate, 166 Pa. Superior Ct. 459, 462, 71 A.2d 831 (1950).
In the Schwartz case Judge, now Justice, ARNOLD speaking for the Court said, The rule "was based upon the duty of a husband to provide his wife with a home, which, of course, means household goods and not merely roof and walls. This duty of the husband is unaffected by the married women's property acts." In that case the Superior Court reversed the lower court which through Judge LADNER questioned this rule, and followed McCarter's Estate, 36 D. & C. 625 (1939), instead of the pronouncements of this Court in the Chadwick and Matheny cases, supra.
In Fine v. Fine, 366 Pa. 227, 77 A.2d 436 (1951), in an opinion by the late Justice ALLEN M. STEWARNE the rule was questioned by the Supreme Court but the above Superior Court cases were not overruled as the Supreme ...