Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports Volume 60 (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1916 edition. Excerpt: ...Keiper's License, 21 Pa. Superior Ct. 512. In Cronin.v. Sharpe, 16 Pa. Superior Ct. 76, we held, an assignment of a license is nothing more than an expression of consent that the license may be transferred to the assignee by the authority granting the same, all that the assignee acquires by it is the privilege of applying for the transfer to the court having jurisdiction to make it. The subject-matter of the contract could not have market value. Such a right cannot have any other than a purely speculative value for the reasons that, --first--the right to a license or transfer of a license is not assignable; second--neither party in interest could to any degree affect the decision of the license court, and this action could not be anticipated. In Barto's App., 55 Pa. 386, an effort was made to charge a wife's land with a debt contracted by her husband for improvements, and it was held to be a suflicient defense that the improvements were made against her consent, the court saying, "if a married woman's real 353, (1915). Opinion of the Court, estate is to be charged for improvements, they must be such as she authorizes and consents to, not such as an inolvent husband or other volunteer may make, against her consent. Her objections may be feigned and insincere, but there is no proof that they were so; and assuming that they were in good faith, it is hard to see what more she could have done to protect her estate from an unwilling encumbrance." The analogy is a fair one in this case, where the wife resists the attempted lien at every step of the proceeding, and denies all liability for a debt which the law says she may not even become a surety for. To sustain such a proceeding could result in a licensee very...