Opinion
December 3, 1937.
January 3, 1938.
Principal and surety — Husband and wife — Liability of wife — Accommodation maker — Nominal holder of title — Act of June 8, 1893, P. L. 344.
The rule that an obligation of a wife given to conserve her own interest in property and to accomplish a purpose of her own is not that of an accommodation maker or surety within the meaning of the Act of June 8, 1893, P. L. 344, is not applicable where the obligation is given to secure an indebtedness of the husband and the wife is only a nominal holder of the title and has no real interest in the property.
Argued December 3, 1937.
Before SCHAFFER, MAXEY, DREW, LINN, STERN and BARNES, JJ.
Appeal, No. 167, Jan. T., 1937, from order of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., June T., 1933, No. 5512, in case of Luther A. Harr, Secretary of Banking, receiver of Olney Bank and Trust Company, v. Emily G. Schwinn et al. Order modified and, as modified, affirmed.
Assumpsit. Before BROWN, J.
Verdict directed for plaintiff against both defendants. Motion by husband defendant for new trial granted; judgment entered for wife defendant n. o. v. Plaintiff appealed.
Errors assigned, among others, were granting of new trial and judgment n. o. v.
Joseph S. Clark, Jr., with him Horace M. Barba, Special Deputy Attorney General, and Charles J. Margiotti, Attorney General, for appellant.
I. Emanuel Sauder, with him Arthur S. Minster, for appellees.
An examination of the record convinces us the court below correctly determined that judgment should be entered for Emily G. Schwinn on both notes, because the testimony establishes that she signed the notes as an accommodation maker. The case is not governed by Archbald v. Hood, 322 Pa. 434, 186 A. 791, because Mrs. Schwinn was only a nominal holder of the title and had no real interest in the property. As to her, the case should be at an end, including her counterclaim.
We are also of opinion that the court in the exercise of a proper discretion granted a new trial as to George Schwinn. The sale of the properties, with a statement that they were subject to a $72,000 mortgage, did not correctly portray the situation. In reality they were subject to whatever was actually due the bank. The real question in the case is what in fairness and equity is George Schwinn's indebtedness.
Order modified and, as modified, affirmed.