Hartz v. Woods
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the Common Pleas of Dauphin county. The material facts of the case were these: A sci.-fa. issued on a mortgage by George Hassinger, reciting that he was bound to Woods in behalf of Landis and Susannah his wife, conditioned to pay 1661, as by the obligation would appear ; and the defeasance was conditioned that he should pay the said sum of 166?. on the day and time thereinbefore mentioned, according to the condition of the bond.
Read the full summary
In error from the Common Pleas of Dauphin county. The material facts of the case were these: A sci.-fa. issued on a mortgage by George Hassinger, reciting that he was bound to Woods in behalf of Landis and Susannah his wife, conditioned to pay 1661, as by the obligation would appear ; and the defeasance was conditioned that he should pay the said sum of 166?. on the day and time thereinbefore mentioned, according to the condition of the bond. There was nothing to show when the money was payable, nor any stipulation in the mortgage with respect to interest. The bond was lost, and it was proved…
1Opinion of the CourtCoulter, J.
George Hassinger was not a competent witness, being directly interested in the event of the suit. His admission was therefore an error. The loss of the bond was not sufficiently proved, nor was search made in all the places where it might have been found, nor all the persons brought to testify who might have had possession of it, in order to lay the ground for parol evidence of its contents. The parol evidence therefore on that subject was improperly admitted. The other bills of exception to eAÚdenee are not sustained.
The sale on the judgment extinguished all liens prior to the judgment on…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Morris v. CampbellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Levy v. SpitzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1929