
    Wayne v. Lewis.
    Under the Married. Persons’ Property Act of June 3,1887, a married woman who leases a farm and carries on the Business of farming and keeping boarders thereon, is entitled to the profits of such Business absolutely, as her separate earnings, without liability to be seized by her husband’s creditors.
    A married woman rented a farm in 1884, which her husband had previously rented, and on which Both had lived together, and where they continued to live. Shortly afterward she Began to keep summer Boarders. Some live stock, which was given to her, together with its offspring, and the'produce of the farm, were levied upon in August, 1887, by a creditor of her Imsband. Meld, on a sheriff’s interpleader, that the wife was entitled to the property.
    Feb. 14, 1889.
    Error, No. 41, Jan. T. 1889, to C. P. Chester Co., to review a judgment on a verdict for the plaintiff in a feigned issue in a sheriff’s interpleader, between M. Laura Lewis, as plaintiff, and-William Wayne, Jr., as defendant, at Oct. T. 1887, No. 47. Green and Clark, JJ., absent.
    The evidence tended to establish the following facts, at the trial, before Waddell, J.:
    In Aug. 1887, the sheriff levied upon certain personal property as the property of Daniel H. Lewis, on a fi. fa. issued by William Wayne, Jr. The defendant in error, the wife of the defendant in the execution, claimed, as her own, the following property levied upon: one mare, one colt, one horse, four cows, two heifers, five calves, one sow and pigs, a lot of oats in the sheaf, aboiit ten tons of hay and three acres of corn. The mare, horse and cows, had been levied upon in 1884 on an execution issued against Daniel II. Lewis at the instance of his father, Joseph Lewis, and sold'by the sheriff, Joseph Lewis being the purchaser. Daniel IT. Lewis was then, with his wife, occupying a farm rented by him from his uncle Caleb Lewis. After leaving the property on the premises for some time, Joseph Lewis resold it at public sale, March 13, 1884. Mrs. Lewis bid in the above mentioned stock, but failed to coffiply with the - conditions of sale. Subsequently Joseph Lewis gave them to her. The heifers, calves and colt were their progeny. On April 5, 1884, Mrs. Lewis rented the farm from Caleb Lewis, and continued to conduct it until the time of this action. In the summer of 1884 Mrs. Lewis began to keep summer boarders. The horses1 Were employed in farming the farm, the milk and butter of the cows was used in boarding the boarders. The potatoes, eggs and poultry were used in the boarding, the grain and hay was fed to the cows and horses or sold; the bills were paid with the produce of the farm and the boarders. The oats levied upon by the sheriff was raised- by the wife on the farm. The hay levied upon by the sheriff was grown and harvested -upon this farm by the wife. The same applies' to the corn levied on. All of these were grown on the farm in the spring or summer of 1887. The sow and pigs were bought in 'June or July 1887, by Mrs. Lewis and paid for by her either with- money made by the boarders or from the proceeds of the hay sold. ■
    The court charged the jury that if they believed the testimony as to the gift of the stock, the title vested in her; but that she could not acquire title to it by purchase on credit, as she had no property-then as a basis for credit. The court then continued :
    “Now the sow and pigs, the lot of oats in the sheaf, ten tons of hay and three acres of corn, depend upon other principles. As you have heard, Mrs. Lewis had no property on which she could purchase other property. At the time she received this property by gift from old Mr. Lewis, if it was given to her, then she probably had property on which she might operate; but it was incumbent, under these circumstances, for her to show that this property was sold to her on the faith and credit of the property which she thus owned.
    [“The sow and pigs were purchased by her, as she says, in July, 1887. Now. at that time, so far as the principles are concerned, which I have defined to you, Mrs. Lewis had no credit except this property that I have spoken of; but she was carrying on business in her own name, apparently, that is, she was running a boarding-house. She was taking boarders, she was entertaining them through the summer and some of them through the whole year. These boarders numbered from 25 to 50 people. She was thus carrying on, last summer, a boarding-house in this county. N ow we say to you that if such was the case, then all the proceeds of that business belonged to her.
    “The Legislature saw fit, on the 3d of June, 1887, to give a married woman the power to carry on a business, as if she was a feme sole. This is a new Act of Assembly, and has not yet, as far as I remember, received any construction by the courts. "We shaE hold that the proceeds of this business carried on belonged to her,, and if it did she had the right to do with it as she pleased,, and she might purchase whatever she saw fit with the proceeds of the business and it would invest in her an absolute title. . . .
    “ The same principles, in the mind of the court, would apply to the farm. She is not only carrying on a boarding-house, but also the farm. If you are satisfied that the testimony in the case is to be believed, then it would seem as if she was the proprietor of the farm. She hired the men, she paid the men, she superintended things, her husband assisted her, but she evidently was master of the establishment, and if she was enabled to carry on that farm under the Act of 1887, then she was entitled to all the products of the farm or the proceeds of the business. They belonged to her just as much as money paid by the boarders; and if you believe that she thus carried on the business of taking boarders and the farming, then we say to you that the proceeds of the business and the farm belonged to her and they cannot be taken to pay her husband’s debts.’’] [1]
    The plaintiff presented, inter alia, the following points:
    “ 3. If the jury find from the evidence that the wheat, hay, corn, and oats, claimed by the plaintiff, were raised on the farm whereon she and her husband reside, then the said property, as to creditors, is her husband’s, unless she proves that she leased the farm on a credit of a separate estate owned by her. Ans. That would be true if it was not for the effect of the Act of 3 887, and it is only in consequence of that Act that the court is led to disaffirm the point.”
    <l 4. Under the evidence in the cause, the products of the farm and the sow and pigs are the property of the plaintiff’s husband, as to his creditors. Ans. That point I disaffirm.”
    Yerdict and judgment for plaintiff for goods claimed.
    
      The assignments of error specified, 1, the portion of the charge in brackets, quoting it; and, 2, 3, the answers to the points, quoting them.
    
      Wm. Butler, Jr., with him Thomas S. Butler, for plaintiff in error.
    The defendant in error offered no evidence to prove that the lease was secured on the credit of any estate of her own. It therefore enured to the benefit of her husband. Lochman v. Brobst, 102 Pa. 481; Blum v. Ross, 116 Pa. 163. The court below ignored the fact that the business of farming and conducting a boarding house was entirely supported by the real estate of the husband.
    The Act of 1887 secures to a married woman her earnings when she owns the estate from which those earnings issue. But the Act of 1887 gives to a married woman no higher rights than she may enjoy when declared a feme sole trader under the Act of April 3, 1872, under which Act she cannot, as against her husband’s creditors, claim' profits accruing from the property of her husband. Leinbach v. Templin, 105 Pa. 522; Hess v. Brown, 111 Pa. 124.
    
      Francis C. Hooton, for defendant in error.
    A creditor after buying the property of his debtor at an open sale, may present it to any member of the debtor’s family. Wieman v. Anderson, 42 Pa. 311; Winch v. James, 68 Pa. 297; Hess v. Brown, 111 Pa. 124.
    A feme covert could make a lease before the Act of 1848. Baxter v. Smith, 6 Binney, 427.
    The passage of the Act of 1887 confirmed the relation of landlord and tenant between Mrs. Lewis and the owner of the farm, and no creditor of her husband, who had failed to make claim before the passage of the Act, could be permitted to do so afterward.
    Feb. 25th, 1889.
   Per Curiam,

Judgment affirmed.

Cf. Orr v. Bornstein, decided Feb. 25, 1889, where it is said: “ In Leinbach v. Templin, 105 Pa. 522, a married woman was in possession of property which appeared to have been bought and paid for, in part at least, by her earnings in a business which she carried on prior to obtaining the benefits of the Act of 1872.”

The point expressly decided in Orr v. Bornstein is that a married woman who has complied with the requirements of the Act of April 3,1872, in regard to separate earnings, may borrow money upon her own credit, whether possessed of separate estate or not; and a stock of goods, purchased with money borrowed upon her own credit, is not liable to be seized by her husband’s creditors.  